#does this qualify as an incorrect quote? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

watarfallar · 3 months ago

Text

I don't know what to put for a title...INCORRECT QUOTES!

BigB: Are you drunk? Impulse: Only on the spirit of Christmas! Pearl: And the spirit of whisky.

Skizz: Three of the four elements are represented as types of hockey. Air hockey, ice hockey, and field hockey. Fire hockey needs to be a thing. Scar: Fire hockey absolutely does NOT need to be a thing. BigB: Do you care NOTHING for the balance of the four elements?!

Gem: What must it be like to live in your head? Are there happy ponies in there? It’s really something how utterly delusional your optimism is. If I didn’t hate you so much, I might even be impressed. Martyn: Huzzah! I got a heavily qualified and slightly sarcastic compliment from Gem!

Etho: But when all hope seemed lost, I had an epiphany! Etho, earlier: I'm going to throw myself into the sea.

Joel: I hate Scar. Pearl: "Hate' is a strong word. Joel: I have strong opinions.

Impulse: I am strong! I beat Jimmy at arm wrestling! BigB: Anyone can beat Jimmy at arm wrestling! Jimmy: Hey-

Grian: Hey, I see those leaves, where are you from? Impulse: Illinois. Grian: AAYYYE, I KNEW IT! ME TOO! Ren: Did you just identify a state by looking at its leaves.

BigB, when Scott walks in: Oh, hey, I'm just making pizza. BigB: *accidentally smacks Ren in the face with the baking sheet*

Grian: *walks into the kitchen, ignoring everyone* Martyn: Hey, Grian, how was your day? Grian: *picks up an onion and bites into it, staring at Martyn* Hell. Mumbo, watching this unfold: *whispers* Who hurt you?

Martyn: It’s impossible to make a sentence without using the letter A. Scar: Despite your thinking, it is quite possible, yet difficult, to form one without the specific letter. Here’s one more to further disprove your theory. Joel: Fuck you.

Etho: Are you ever going to listen to me? Ren: Yes. Absolutely. Etho: When? Ren: When you're right.

Skizz, teaching Grian to drive: Okay Grian, what does a green light mean? Grian: Go! Skizz: A red light? Grian: Stop! Skizz: And what about a yellow light? Grian: If you floor it, you can make it! Skizz: …No—

Lizzie: We are gathered here today because someone- *glares at Bdubs’s coffin* -couldn’t stay alive!

Martyn: What if we were stranded on a desert island? Who would you eat? Jimmy: Etho. Martyn: So fast? Wh-what about me? I would eat you! Jimmy: That’s very nice, I guess. Martyn: Why wouldn’t you eat me? I’m your best friend. Jimmy: Look, if other people are having some, I’ll try you.

Tango: Say no to drugs. Gem: Say yes to drugs. Jimmy: It doesn't matter if you say yes or no to drugs. If you're talking to drugs.. then you're on drugs.

Impulse: "What are you into?" is such a broad question, like do I reply with a TV series or choking?

Lizzie: There. How do I look? Jimmy: Like a cheap French harlot. Lizzie: French?!

BigB: My dad died when I was little so whenever someone jokes about fucking my mom I’ll pretend to be really sincere and say some shit like “Glad to see she’s moving on, my dad’s death hit her pretty hard.” Then watch them absolutely fumble trying to figure out a response to that statement. BigB: Update, she got a new partner I can no longer make the joke.

Cleo: It'll be fun. Cleo: We'll make a day of it. Cleo: Come on you punk bitch. Scar: I can't believe I have to say this. Scar: I don't have time to get tested for sti's with you tomorrow.

Grian: Capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse.." and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse.."

Scar: I haven’t lost my virginity. Jimmy: Because you have no friends? Scar: No... because I never lose!

Lizzie: *banging a pen on the table out of frustration* Gem: Stop that. How would YOU feel if I banged you on the table? Lizzie: I— Lizzie: I don’t know the correct answer to that question.

64 notes · View notes

communistkenobi · 10 months ago

Text

I’m reading Late Fascism by Alberto Toscano. I’m still on the first chapter, where he discusses various definitions of fascism and their usefulness for highlighting specific components of fascist rhetoric and organising. And I particularly like this section where he critiques and dismisses the “white-working-class” argument, ie, that the modern bases of fascism can be found in the white working class, who express this fascist consciousness through voting for right-wing politicians (and he is of course talking about the US, addressing this formation re: the Trump base):

This is why it is incumbent on a critical (or indeed anti-fascist) left to stop indulging in the ambient rhetoric of the white working-class voter as the subject-supposed-to-have-voted for the fascist-populist option. This is not only because of the sociological dubiousness of the electoral argument, or the enormous pass it gives to the middle and upper classes, or because of the tawdry forms of self-satisfied condescension it allows a certain academic or journalistic commentator or reader, or even the way it leads a certain left to indulge the fantasies 'if only we could mobilise them' and 'if only we had the right slogan'. Politically speaking, the working class as a collective body, rather than as a manipulated seriality, does not (yet) exist. To impute the subjectivity of a historical agency to a false political totality is not only to unwittingly repeat the unity trick of fascistic propaganda but also to suppose that emancipatory political forms and energies lie latent in social life. By way of provocation, we could adapt Adorno's statement, quoted earlier, to read: 'We may at least venture the hypothesis that the class identity of the contemporary Trump voter in a way presupposes the end of class itself.' A sign of this is the stickiness of the racial qualifier white in white working class. Alain Badiou once noted about the phraseology of ��Islamic terrorism’ that when a predicate is attributed to a formal substance… it has no other consistency than that of giving an ostensible content to that form. In ‘Islamic terrorism’, the predicate ‘Islamic’ has no other function except that of supplying an apparent content to the word ‘terrorism’ which is itself devoid of all content (in this instance, political). Here whiteness is - not just at the level of discourse, but, I would argue, at the level of political experience - the supplement to a politically void or spectral notion of the working class; it is what allows a pseudo-collective agency to be imbued with a (toxic) psychosocial content. This is all the more patent if we note how, in both public debate and psephological [electoral] 'expertise', whiteness seems to be indispensable in order to belong to this ‘working class’, while any determinate relation to the means of production is optional at best. (pp 19-20)

His critique of the white-working-class argument, that ‘The Left’ has insufficiently persuaded this group and left them to be duped by ‘The Right’, is that in order to conceptualise the white working class as a coherent political group that has become aware of itself as a political group through right-wing (fascist) consciousness-raising, is to argue that fascist consciousness is a form of proletarian class consciousness. As he says, it’s not only incorrect in practical and factual terms, but makes an analytical error in assuming that fascists are primarily mobilising people with regard to their class position. This argument accepts the validity of the “populist” label as a horseshoe catch-all, that left-wing articulations of proletarian class consciousness are equivalent to right-wing articulations of a national/racial pseudo-consciousness.

And as he says, this is also not an argument about class at all - working class means nothing in this formulation, its primary function is to ground ‘white’ and give it apparent meaning. This is how he arrives at Adorno’s adapted formulation of ‘presupposing the end of class itself,’ as class holds no explanatory power and makes little reference to reality (it is only a ‘spectral notion’). In effect, it collapses ‘white’ into ‘working class’, making whiteness a prerequisite of belonging to the working class. This is a hilarious trick given that the white qualifier is at least partially meant to save the journalist or academic from accusations of assuming all working class people are white, but by emphasising whiteness with no regard to the class position that the white-working-class supposedly occupies, race is flattened into working class, reducing class to (the white) race.

Of course, this conclusion is not derived from any serious analysis of racial histories and economic processes such as colonialism, where this race/class intertwining helps to explain and understand the lineage of race itself. I’m pulling now from Aníbal Quijano’s Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America, who argues that race functions as the organisational system of class in settler-colonial contexts; race refers to and gives shape to the class position in the means of production in settler-colonial societies, where positions such as “slave” and “slaveowner” as classes are enforced and systematised on the basis of race, naturalising class to the supposed “biological reality” of race.

Through this analysis of colonialism and race we see how even more absurd this white-working-class argument becomes, that it concludes that whiteness is a racial barrier of entry to the proletariat; in effect, very roughly inverting the racial logic of colonial capitalism in order to argue that poor whites are the base of fascism. Noticeably, this accepts the basic fascist argument that whites are an underclass being oppressed by a non-white ‘misfit’ bourgeoisie, who achieved their position through social manipulation, trickery, and liberal social justice programs like affirmative action. Where liberals depart from this formulation is merely to argue that a diverse ruling class is the result of meritocracy as opposed to social engineering.

This is a liberal articulation of fascism: an adoption of the fascist logic that races can be activated as a class, that race is a dormant social energy that can be activated in the minds of a white class, but this argument is used as a means of obscuring white supremacy as a tool of right-wing reaction and mobilisation by tacking on the qualifier of ‘working class’ at the end. In this way, working class becomes the qualifier to white, not the other way around, positioning fascism as a purely lower class phenomenon, something that afflicts only the poor whites, the stupid whites, the uneducated whites. This allows for the obfuscation of the bourgeois character of fascism, and provides fuel for “the tawdry forms of self-satisfied condescension it allows a certain academic or journalistic commentator,” many of whom are themselves white.

#book club #late fascism

73 notes · View notes

blue1lotus · 9 months ago

Text

TMNT incorrect quotes

Mikey: In my defense, I was left unsupervised. Leo, crying: Wasn’t Raph with you? Raph: In my defense, I was also left unsupervised.

Raph: Of course I have a lot of pent-up rage, you fool! I've been the same height since I was twelve!

Raph: What must it be like to live in your head? Are there happy ponies in there? It’s really something how utterly delusional your optimism is. If I didn’t hate you so much, I might even be impressed. Mikey: Huzzah! I got a heavily qualified and slightly sarcastic compliment from Raph!

Casey: Three of the four elements are represented as types of hockey. Air hockey, ice hockey, and field hockey. Fire hockey needs to be a thing. Donnie: Fire hockey absolutely does NOT need to be a thing. Casey: Do you care NOTHING for the balance of the four elements?!

#tmnt 2012 #incorrect quotes #tmnt #tmnt 2003 #i try to be funny #tmnt mikey #tmnt leonardo #tmnt donatello #tmnt raphael #rise of the tmnt #tmnt 2018 #tmnt 2007 #funny memes #casey jones

28 notes · View notes

patrochillesvibes · 2 months ago

Note

About the posts in your pinned post

I genuinely don't understand the accusations towards those people..

I just read all the posts and uh—

Half of them aren't really racist?? They have a point, I mean, I always wondered why some artists and other people are depicting some of Greek mythology characters as not Greeks, cuz that's kinda illogical

But I'm not racist, I'm not hating it

Adaptation is okay, and I'm also enjoying arts, fanfics, etc. with tan-skinned Pat or others.

I'm just— maybe I really don't understand something, but how is that racist? When did asking logical questions WITHOUT hating the race itself became racist?

Please explain me why it's wrong cuz I don't understand—

Also I'm extremely against racism, but I just don't understand how that can be racist, cuz it's just logical questions. I mean.. some characters(not only Greek mythology related) are meant to be of a certain race and no other, and that's not racism, it's just how it is, headcanons are normal, but when people insist that they can count it as canon is not really right imho

I'm terribly sorry if I offended someone, but I don't understand it, really. I can understand with the last one since they kinda "laughed" at the traits of the race, but the others are just asking logical questions, some of them are even having characters designs with the same traits, they're just saying that change of race can't be CANON, artists can do and still draw races and designs as they want.

Please explain 😭😭😭

Other people more qualified than me have spoken on this topic. I will try my best.

In the quotes highlighted in my Wall of Shame, these racist blogs have mixed up the concepts of race and ethnicity.

Race and ethnicity are not the same. These are not terms that are interchangeable. Race is a social construct that has historically been used to categorize humans according to physical or biological characteristics. Ethnicity too is a social construct, but its classification of humans is based on identity through a shared culture (language, practices, beliefs, etc.).

If you are raised in a culture or practice a culture, you become part of that culture. In other words, you acquire that culture’s ethnicity. It is possible to have more than one ethnicity (e.g. Greek-American) and to change ethnicity over a lifetime. Skin color has nothing to do with ethnicity.

Skin color is part of the social construct of race.

The racist blogs in my Wall of Shame repeat over and over again that they want Greek mythological figures to be depicted as “ethnically Greek.” This is code for White™.

When they say ethnically Greek, what they actually mean is racially Greek since they’re talking about skin color. And while also incorrect because Greek is not considered a race, the words racially Greek don’t sound as nice as ethnically Greek. Instead it sounds overtly racist whereas talking about ethnicity gives them a plausible excuse to say ‘I’m not racist, I’m talking about ethnicity’.

Fun fact, the modern country of Greece does not collect demographic data based on race or ethnicity. See CIA World Factbook, European Commission, and Greece’s Hellenic Statistical Authority. Isn’t that curious? Anyways…

So being on the continent of Europe, statistically speaking the race of most Greeks is going to be White™. With that in mind, here’s the breakdown of the hidden meaning, the code, behind what they’re saying: “ethnically Greek” = racially Greek = White™. Thus, their headcanon is that Patroclus and all the other Greek mythological figures are White™.

And that’s fine. You can have a race headcanon for a character. And the act of having a race headcanon in itself is not necessarily inherently racist. It’s your unconscious bias that helped you form your headcanon and the way you go about expressing your headcanon that can make the act racist.

So in other words, it’s the word vomit that comes after saying ‘Patroclus is White™ imo’ that is racist. It’s their explanation -that because Patroclus is Greek, he must be White™- that is racist. Saying this and having this belief is racist.

A person’s skin color does not define their culture, their ethnicity.

People of African descent can absolutely be Greek! In fact, there are mythological figures who are Black Greek! A great example is Andromeda. Her father was the king of Ethiopia.

I’d also like to point out that Black Greeks are very real. The village of Avato, Greece is home to Black Greeks who are descendants of African slaves brought to the region. Additionally, Greece and Northern Africa have a very long interwoven history of immigration, colonialism, and imperialism.

And one final point. Classics Tumblr™ often goes on these philosophical rants about how it is illegal to apply labels like homosexual or bisexual to Achilles and Patroclus because these are modern concepts of sexuality and these concepts didn’t exist back then. With that same logic, I will state that modern conceptions of race and ethnicity did not exist back then so we should not be applying it to Greek mythology.

What the racist blogs should have done was simply say ‘I think Patroclus is White™’ and then stopped talking. Instead, they went on a tangent about how “real” Greeks are White™. And thus, they revealed that it’s not that they see Patroclus as White™ because of statistics and probability of geography. He is White™ to them because they have been brain washed by white supremacy. And this is why they’re on my list.

Something that really fascinates me about this whole thing is this ironic obsession with whiteness. Historically, Northern Europeans have excluded those of Southern Europe, like Greeks and Italians, from their definition of whiteness. For the longest time, Greeks and Italians were the exotic ‘other’ to people like the English. They were considered dark skinned and even people of color. Even to this day these prejudices against Southern Europeans born of the marriage of colorism and racism remain. So there’s a bit of sad irony there that the people who insist on being seen as White™ are not always seen as White™ by all White™ people.

#ask #fandom racism #fucking Classics Tumblr™ being Classics Tumblr™#this fandom fucking sucks #tagamemnon #Patroclus #Hades Game

7 notes · View notes

familyabolisher · 2 years ago

Note

🔥 fanfiction

the distinction between what does and does not constitute ‘fanfiction’ is almost entirely dependent on site of publishing/identification as such on the part of the author. whilst ‘dante’s inferno is fanfiction’ is an incorrect statement because it misunderstands the relation between the commedia and its plethora of source materials & misattributes this relation to what is in fact a contemporary phenomenon that exists relative to the rise of IP, this is v rarely the terrain that people are fighting on because the ‘is/is not fanfiction’ property is applied as a metric of quality rather than a value-neutral statement about the political economy of a prose text. (ie. inferno/the commedia is ‘not fanfiction’ because it’s Good—under a particular metric which defers to hegemony—your 400k destiel coffee shop omegaverse au etc etc could Never be dante because it lacks an intellectual quality with which dante has been imbued—do you see what i mean about quality being the qualifying metric here, rather than the actual nature of the text? plausibly, under this framework, someone could write fanfiction of a quality sufficient to transcend the category of ‘fanfiction’ and become, in fact, ‘canonical.’ by this logic, there exists a scale of objective ‘quality’ running from ‘fanfiction’ to ‘canonical’ such that that is what those categories describe. like, you see why this is incoherent.) anyway, these are silly terms to fight on & i think key to an actual politics of literature (far beyond this v parochial argument) is interrogating all the assumptions about meritocracy + artistic value + particular forms of ‘publishing’ as legitimising or delegitimising a work that seem to be making up the base of this discourse whilst managing to go totally uninterrogated.

also, it’s very weird that people treat fanfiction as a wholly discrete category completely shut off from the critical practices we bring to our understanding of what gets called ‘real’ literature (which is in itself a very poorly thought-out umbrella). fanfiction does have significant reactionary currents running through its attached culture and it’s dishonest and lazy to try and dismiss that fact, but there exists a particular cognitive dissonance which jumps from here to the idea that the way we ought to think about ‘difficult’ subject matter in our ‘real’ literature (as deployed to a particular end that could look like any number of things far beyond the boundary of tacit or explicit endorsement; as potentially unethical in its depiction, but also as potentially thoughtful and discursive and ethically viable) has no crossover into how we can think about fanfiction. the idea that fanfiction alone is a discrete category in which everything depicted makes for a 1:1 articulation of the real-life ethics of the author with no possible room for ambiguity of the kind that we allow other forms of prose fiction is as silly as saying that lolita is sufficient evidence for vladimir nabokov having been a pedophile, and leaves us with a stupidly limited and pretty easily refutable scope for what fanfiction actually is and does.

that being said, hot take #3 is that people interested in fanfiction & how it can be situated within a discourse of literary criticism & production need to be prepared to actually address the fact that the culture around it can be vv reactionary, most often racist, and decrying all criticism as coming from quote-unquote “antis” (silly term) or as people trying to project “moralism”/“puritanism” onto a fandom space is itself also racist.

#ask game #posting some of my most cancellable takes at 11 in the morning <3 #tbf nothing here is incongruent with shit i've said before/my general politics. So

146 notes · View notes

kaylinalexanderbooks · 8 months ago

Text

Incorrect quotes

Thanks @mysticstarlightduck here!

Rules: use this [edit: forgot the link] incorrect quotes generator to generate incorrect quotes for your OCs!

Hehe I love this one

Ash: Noelle, I know you love Jedi. I mean, we all do, he's a very nice person and I respect him immensely.

Ash: But I think he might be a fucking idiot.

Jedi: You borrowed a crane?

Robbie: Not exactly.

Gwen: You stole a crane?!

Robbie: Exactly.

Robbie: Hey Rose, do you have any hobbies?

Rose: Swimming..

Robbie: Really? That’s cool. I never expected you to-

Rose: In a pool of self hatred and regret.

Noelle: The clock is ticking! We don't have time for this asinine tomfoolery!

Robbie: This unmitigated poppycock?

Akash: Extravagant hogwash!

Noelle: Okay, stop.

Rose: Stop thinking whatever you're thinking.

Robbie: Huh?

Rose: You always make that face when you're about to say something stupid just to piss me off. So cut it out-

Robbie: I love you.

Rose:

Robbie:

Robbie: Also, cereal qualifies as a soup.

Rose: I KNEW IT!!

Kelsey: Reverse tooth fairy where you leave money under your pillow and the tooth fairy comes and leaves you a bunch of teeth.

Gwen: Why?

Kelsey, shaking a bag of teeth: Just because.

Lexi: Wait a minute, how did this happen? We're smarter than this!

Kelsey: Apparently, we're not.

Gwen: Hey, can we stay in your dorm tonight?

Ash: Why?

Gwen: Lexi fiddled with an ouija board and cursed ours.

Akash: Robbie doesn't know how to banish spirits, so he just threw salt at them and yelled "DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A HOTEL TO YOU?!"

Lexi, on the phone: What’s up, Gwen?

Gwen: I’m sitting in a pool of blood.

Lexi: …Um, is it YOUR blood?

Gwen: I think so.

Lexi: Do you know where the blood’s coming from?

Gwen: Probably the stab wound.

Lexi: YOU’VE BEEN STABBED?!

Gwen: Oh, yeah, definitely.

Akash: Don’t stay up all night, Carmen. Last time you got this sleep-deprived, you tried to eat your own shirt.

Maddie: I have met some of the most insufferable people. But they also met me.

Robbie: I have seen a lot of murders in my time, and all six of them were today.

Carmen: *mixing different alcoholic beverages together*

Gwen: What are you making?

Carmen: A mistake.

Noelle: I personally don't think it's possible to come up with a crazier plan.

Maddie: We could attack them with hummus.

Noelle: I stand corrected.

Maddie: Just keeping things in perspective.

This was awesome

Tagging @leahnardo-da-veggie @mk-writes-stuff @melpomene-grey @lesleymoonwriter @winterandwords

+ ANYONE ELSE

TSP intro

TSP tag list (ask to be +/-): @thepeculiarbird @illarian-rambling @televisionjester @finchwrites

@nebula--nix @literarynecromancy @honeybewrites

#the secret portal #teaspoon #tsp #oc tag game #my ocs #incorrect quotes #oc incorrect quotes #writing tag game #writers on tumblr #writing community #writers of tumblr #writing on tumblr #writeblr #writeblr community

10 notes · View notes

canmom · 7 months ago

Note

(Me again! Previously I had bothered you in DMs about an article, but figured it might be better to send an ask in this case.) On the topic of environmental concerns, I did have a question about James Hansen's 'Global Warming in the Pipeline' which was published last year. A previous (and rather bleak) Medium article you analyzed had cited this particular paper as proof that we're on track to exceed 3C in our lifetimes, even if emissions were to suddenly halt today. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha09020b.html Since this paper has now passed peer review, what exactly does this mean in simplistic terms? I understand this means that the climate scientists that have analyzed the paper agree with what it states (and see no issues with it's logic), but does it actually mean we'll reach 4C by 2100? Or have I misunderstood what this is stating? The only way I see this not being the case is if somehow Hansen's paper later turns out to be incorrect (which seems unlikely).

I also understand that the paper heavily advocates for a level of geoengineering, which I think is a better alternative to letting a large majority of people suffer, but I'm not sure if you have any opinions on when you think that'd be best to do.

oooh, i've put off answering this because it's perhaps a bit above my pay grade, but let's see

so as far as passing peer review - it's hard to say how robust that is in terms of whether you should believe its conclusions. it depends a lot on the field, the reviewers, and so on - papers are retracted frequently, even if the initial round of reviewers advised to publish.

in climate science we are engaged in a spectacularly difficult modelling task. this paper also speaks on a pretty broad range of subjects. let me quote the full abstract, adding some paragraph breaks:

Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2±0.3°C (2σ) per W/m2, which is 4.8°C±1.2°C for doubled CO2. Consistent analysis of temperature over the full Cenozoic era — including 'slow' feedbacks by ice sheets and trace gases — supports this sensitivity and implies that CO2 was 300-350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models. Equilibrium global warming for today's GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today's human-made aerosols. Equilibrium warming is not 'committed' warming; rapid phaseout of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring. However, decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 1970-2010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27°C per decade. Thus, under the present geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will exceed 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming increases hydrologic (weather) extremes. The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth's radiation imbalance to phase down today's massive human-made 'geo-transformation' of Earth's climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

As I've split it, the first paragraph is a quantitative statement about equilibrium warming, which is the paper's scientific contribution. The second paragraph adds some qualifiers about the expected trajectory "under the present geopolitical approach". The third para is a political argument - a 'what is to be done' type statement.

That's a lot to cover in one paper! It also invites different kinds of approaches to peer review. A scientist reviewing the first half of this paper would be making a technical analysis: do Hansen et al look at the right data, analyse it rigorously, etc. etc.

Why is this all so complicated? Well, lots of things change on Earth when it gets hotter and colder. The amount of cloud coverage, the amount of ice, the way the oceans mix hot and cold water, etc. etc., the amount of dust and soot in the air from forest fires - all of this affects how much energy comes into the atmosphere, how much gets reflected into space, etc etc.

The main things that the paper talks about are...

the equilibrium climate sensitivity: basically, if you add a bunch of extra energy to the system (what climate scientists call 'forcing'), once everything settles down, what temperature do you end up at, per unit of forcing?

the speed of various feedbacks - how quickly the clouds, ice, etc. etc. change in response to the forcing, which determines how quickly you approach this final equilibrium temperature. Knowing which feedbacks are fast and slow is important since it tells us what we can expect to happen when we cut CO2 emissions.

It's naturally a pretty involved discussion and I don't pretend to have the background to follow all the ins and outs of it, but Hansen et al. use various lines of evidence to try to assess these parameters, see how they affect climate models, and the like. They perform an analysis of how temperature and estimated CO2 varied during the Cenozoic era, and there's a section on estimating the effects of aerosols, both natural and human-made.

On the subject of aerosols, Hansen et al. suggest that previous climate models may have made two mistakes that cancelled each other out:

Recent global warming does not yield a unique ECS [Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity] because warming depends on three major unknowns with only two basic constraints. Unknowns are ECS, net climate forcing (aerosol forcing is unmeasured), and ocean mixing (many ocean models are too diffusive). Constraints are observed global temperature change and Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) [80]. Knutti [150] and Hansen [75] suggest that many climate models compensate for excessive ocean mixing (which reduces surface warming) by using aerosol forcing less negative than the real world, thus achieving realistic surface warming.

What they're saying here is, though we have a pretty good idea of how much CO2 we put in the atmosphere, since we don't have a good measure of aerosols we don't actually know for sure how much energy humans were adding to the atmosphere. Like, CO2 adds energy, but sulfur dioxide reflects it away.

There's three unknown parameters here, and two constraints (things we can calculate for definite). We use a model to tell us one of those unknowns (the ocean stuff), and that allows us to tune the effect of aerosols until our model Earth matches our measurements of the real Earth. But, if our ocean model is wrong, then we end up wrongly estimating the effect of aerosols.

The upshot is that aerosols have been a bigger deal than we thought, and as the world cleans up the atmsophere and removes the amount of aerosols, the rate of warming will increase. It's definitely plausible - but it's such a complicated system that there could easily be some other nuance here.

I won't try to summarise every point in the paper but it's that kind of thing that they're arguing about here. This isn't a mathematical proof, though! Since it's touching on a huge range of different parameters, trying to draw together lots of different lines of evidence, there is still a fair bit of room for nuance. It's not so simple as 'Hansen et al. are right' or 'Hansen et al. are wrong' - they could be wrong about one thing and right about another.

To say they've passed peer review is to say that they've done as reasonable a job as anyone can expect to try and figure out this kind of messy problem. However, other scientists may still take issue with one or another claim. It's not as definitive as a maths paper.

That said, Hansen's arguments all seem pretty plausible to me. The tools he uses to assess this situation are sensible and he talks about cases where things weren't as expected (he thought that improved climate models would change in a different way, and they didn't). But while I know enough about the subject to be able to largely follow what he's saying, I'm not confident saying whether he's right.

The second half takes on a different tone...

This section is the first author’s perspective based on more than 20 years of experience on policy issues that began with a paper [179] and two workshops [180] that he organized at the East-West Center in Hawaii, followed by meetings and workshops with utility experts and trips to more than a dozen nations for discussions with government officials, energy experts, and environmentalists. The aim was to find a realistic scenario with a bright energy and climate future, with emphasis on cooperation between the West and nations with emerging or underdeveloped economies.

So this is more of a historical, political analysis section, addressing why we are on this trajectory and why scientists may be institutionally underestimating the threat ('scientific reticence', 'gradualism' and so on). Well, more precisely, it's a polemic - a scientifically informed polemic, but this is basically an editorial stapled to the science part of the paper.

This includes an account of how a previous paper ('Ice Melt') led by Hansen was reviewed, and sidelined by other scientists, for what Hansen considers unsound reasons. It leads into something of an impassioned plea by Hansen addressed at his fellow scientists, complete with rhetorical questions:

Climate science reveals the threat of being too late. ‘Being too late’ refers not only to warning of the climate threat, but also to technical advice on policy implications. Are we scientists not complicit if we allow reticence and comfort to obfuscate our description of the climate situation? Does our training, years of graduate study and decades of experience, not make us well-equipped to advise the public on the climate situation and its policy implications? As professionals with deep understanding of planetary change and as guardians of young people and their future, do we not have an obligation, analogous to the code of ethics of medical professionals, to render to the public our full and unencumbered diagnosis? That is our objective.

This leads into Hansen's proposal for how to get out of this mess: a price on carbon dioxide, nuclear power, and rushing to research geoengineering such as spraying salt water in the air. And then e.g. specific political proposals, like 'a political party that takes no money from special interests', ranked choice voting and so on.

Naturally this is a lot harder to take technical issue with. It's more like an editorial. As a reviewer you'd probably say it's worth publishing because it's well argued, etc. etc., without necessarily agreeing with every one of Hansen's proposals. You can say 'that obviously wouldn't work' and so on, but it's a different kind of argument.

So re your questions:

does it actually mean we'll reach 4C by 2100?

If Hansen et al. are right, the IPCC reports are underestimating the equilibrium we approach for the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - which would lead to 2°C well before 2050, so 4°C by 2100 seems plausible (I didn't spot a timeline that goes that far in the paper when I skimmed through but I could have missed it).

This isn't the amount of warming that will happen, because the Earth has many systems which gradually scrub CO2 from the atmosphere. If we stopped pumping out CO2 suddenly, the amount of CO2, and the amount of extra energy it adds, would gradually decline. So we wouldn't necessarily approach that equilibrium. On the other hand, the amount of CO2 forcing is only going up as things currently stand - and if the amount of forcing stayed the same, Hansen says it would eventually deglaciate Antarctica, leading to over 10°C of warming.

But working out what will actually happen by 2100 depends on a lot of modelling assumptions - how long do you assume we keep pumping out CO2? Hansen addresses this when talking about the subject of 'committed warming':

‘Committed warming’ is less precisely defined; even in the current IPCC report [12] (p. 2222) it has multiple definitions. One concept is the warming that occurs if human-made GHG emissions cease today, but that definition is ill-posed as well as unrealistic. Do aerosol emissions also cease? That would cause a sudden leap in Earth’s energy imbalance, a ‘termination shock,’ as the cooling effect of human-made aerosols disappears. A more useful definition is the warming that will occur with plausibly rapid phasedown of GHG emissions, including comparison with ongoing reality. However, the required ‘integrated assessment models,’ while useful, are complex and contain questionable assumptions that can mislead policy (see Perspective on policy implications section).

So, will we reach 4C by 2100? We can only phrase this question in a conditional way: if we continue to add this much energy, then...

In practice we will probably end up reducing our emissions one way or another - which is to say, if our present complex societies collapse, they ain't gonna be emitting much carbon anymore...

The way things are going, I think it's likely that people will try geoengineering when the climate-related disasters really start to ramp up, so whether or not they should ends up kind of besides the point.

Hansen doesn't really advocate a specific programme to pursue - only one paragraph in the whole paper talks about geoengineering:

Highest priority is to phase down emissions, but it is no longer feasible to rapidly restore energy balance via only GHG emission reductions. Additional action is almost surely needed to prevent grievous escalation of climate impacts including lock-in of sea level rise that could destroy coastal cities world-wide. At least several years will be needed to define and gain acceptance of an approach for climate restoration. This effort should not deter action on mitigation of emissions; on the contrary, the concept of human intervention in climate is distasteful to many people, so support for GHG emission reductions will likely increase. Temporary solar radiation management (SRM) will probably be needed, e.g. via purposeful injection of atmospheric aerosols. Risks of such intervention must be defined, as well as risks of no intervention; thus, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences recommends research on SRM [212]. The Mt. Pinatubo eruption of 1991 is a natural experiment [213, 214] with a forcing that reached [30] –3 W/m2. Pinatubo deserves a coordinated study with current models. The most innocuous aerosols may be fine salty droplets extracted from the ocean and sprayed into the air by autonomous sailboats [215]. This approach has been discussed for potential use on a global scale [216], but it needs research into potential unintended effects [217]. This decade may be our last chance to develop the knowledge, technical capability, and political will for actions needed to save global coastal regions from long-term inundation.

He says 'we need to research this more to figure out the risks, since we'll probably have to do it' basically. Climate researchers have historically been reluctant to advocate geoengineering for fear it will be mistaken as a way to solve the climate problem without reducing GHG emissions, so honestly seeing them suggest it now maybe brings to light the atmosphere of desperation in the field.

Unfortunately, when talking about politics and economics, Hansen is on much less firm ground than when he's picking apart the intricacies of climate feedbacks. He clearly wants to try to discourage doomerism, and he's rightly critical of cap-and-trade and similar schemes, but he has his specific political fixations and what he suggests is all a bit unconvincing as a programme. I don't say this because I've got a better idea, though.

The problem is that the future is really hard to predict. It's bad enough when it's climate systems, but humans are even more complicated little nonlinear freaks. This isn't a new problem for Hansen's paper. I am pessimistic enough by nature that I don't really trust my ability to predict what we will do when climate change gets more severe. Hopefully by the time we finally decide to stop kicking the can down the road, there will still be something to be done.

#climate change #i don't know if this is a very helpful answer #interesting paper to read at least

8 notes · View notes

thelovelymachinery · 4 months ago

Text

Incorrect Quote tag game

I thought this would be fun and I haven't seen it around so oh well

Rules: Use this quote generation to generate quotes for your characters, you can edit the generator to make it fit what kind of quotes you'd prefer and remember to rate the quote.

I will be using this for the Whitehall teens (Aurelia, Aereth, Destiny, Dion, and the Narrator)

Quote 1

Dion: What’s wrong? Narrator: I have to write a whole paragraph for school. Dion: That’s not so bad; I write entire books. Narrator: Yeah, but this has to be good.

10/10 The Narrator does not like Dion, he could be the best writer to ever exist and she would still hate it.

Quote 2

Delilah: The greatest trick the devil ever played was getting me banned from an all you can eat pizza buffet. Destiny: Why’d you get banned? Delilah: Touched the rat. Destiny: … What rat? Delilah: Chunky Cheese.

5/10 Switch the characters and it would be canon. Destiny would try to steal the mascots head.

Quote 3

Delilah: You shouldn't be using a straw. Narrator: I know, I know, it's bad for the environment and stuff. Delilah: Yeah, but I mean… it's a weird way to eat spaghetti.

0/10 The Narrator is in fact allergic to spaghetti.

Quote 4

The Squad using an Ouija board Aereth: Tell us… Is there a spirit in this house? Spirit, through the board: YES. Delilah: Great! Rent is due on the first of the month. Dion: Oh, and movie night is on Friday if you want to hang out. Spirit: WAIT, WHAT—

5/10 It would be perfect if Dion just fucking died, we don't want him here.

Quote 5

Dion: Stop thinking whatever you're thinking. Destiny: Huh? Dion: You always make that face when you're about to say something stupid just to piss me off. So cut it out- Destiny: I love you. Dion: Destiny: Destiny: Also, cereal qualifies as a soup. Dion: I KNEW IT!!

9/10 If Destiny knew what cereal was she would say this. She says the stupidest shit.

Gently tagging

@wyked-ao3 @thecomfywriter @the-letterbox-archives @mysticstarlightduck

@bookwormclover @illarian-rambling @leahnardo-da-veggie @bio-blegh

Beating up with the tag button

@an-indecisive-nerd @thecomfywriter @mysticstarlightduck

(Mystic, please do the babies, you know who I want.)

Interact here to be added to the list.

Interact to interact (aka be cool, love me)

#writers on tumblr #whitehall school for the impeccable #writerblr

5 notes · View notes

4-hour-naps · 1 year ago

Text

Tom Cardy lyrics as incorrect Dazai quotes from every song

In order of most fun/fitting. I feel uniquely qualified to make this. But I add more unnecessary commentary as we go.

Big Breakfast

“Hey Patricia can you bring me a kitchen sink so I can drown myself infront of all your clientele”

Artificial Intelligence

“So i guess that i feel a little sad, that i can't feel all the ways it feels to be human”

Perception Check

“you’re a short motherfucker and nobody likes you”

Why am I Anxious

“I would try to do anything to make my life feel better, except anything that my life feels better”

High Five

“Could it be me buyin' everyone a round of Fireball, but then drinkin' them all. And then tellin' your girlfriend that you're cheatin' on her with me” (This whole part tbh)

The Ballad of Smoking Joe Rudeboy

“I know that their packing heat, and I know they know I’m the man to beat”

Mixed Messages

“I’m really sorry for punching your dad in the dick I won’t do it again…I ball up my other hand and punch your dad in the dick again” (does anyone even have a dad in bsd)

Business Man

“Ahh! You shot me in the leg!” (Like he could’ve said literally have said this, bonus: “no, you’ve got a dumb name”)

HYCYBH

“Have you checked your butthole” (specifically after the grandma dies part. I can see him doing this to Kuni for like a week straight, purposely hiding stuff just to say it)

Read Between the Lines

“please don’t misunderstand me I’ll always leave you a clue” (the clue in question only Ranpo understands)

Big Dumb Idiot

“Light on my feet as I sneak into your house, be a giant fuckin' idiot, then sneak back out”

Hey I don’t work here

“That way I could teach your kid to drown in front of you” (he is an expert… or is he?… I mean cause he..)

.・゜゜・ things get a little iffy here ・゜゜・．

Paint That Lady

“Do you want to be my lady? I want to raise your babies. My only job is to pleasure you” (Lying through his teeth to get laid)

Carol Brown

“Mimi will no longer see me. Brittany, Brittany hit me. Paula, Persephone stela and Stephanie. There must be fifty ways that lovers have left me” (womanizer king /j)

Get Louis Theroux

“I was being to feel 👹 omnipotent👹” (okay maybe he wouldn’t but… like to scare Chuuya or smth? Idk I just like this part okay??)

Party Dog

“So kiss the ring motherfucker and then I’ll let you stay”

Beautiful Mind

“I, know, so sit back and enjoy thе show” (said after he has crafted the most devious of schemes)

Your Love is Not Enough

“You’re love is not enough, give me some really cool shit”

Call Your Mother

“You've got the power to be a massive sick cunt” (somehow trying to encourage atsushi)

Monster Truck

“I’ll stab you in the face bitch” (? To Mori idk)

・゜゜・．I struggled with these songs ・゜゜・．

Naughty or Nice

“When he thinks no one is watching, I’m watching” (uhh.. )

#inspirational

“I use emojis to deflect” (he would)

Future of Humanity

“Spit in my mouth for mankind” (I will not be taking feedback here)

Red Flags

“You know the deal (Pucker up)” (did I just pick this bc it’s funny? Yes)

(That’s all the songs on Spotify + perception check, there are probs other unreleased songs but)

#bsd dazai osamu #bungo stray dogs dazai #bsd incorrect quotes #what is this? idk but I was giggling making it so that’s what matters ig #cw cursing #cw cussing #tw sui ideation #nap talking

12 notes · View notes