|
No, if anything the published science has been undershooting whats going on. Maybe the past 5 years are an anomaly or just a local spike, but if they are in fact representitive of whats to come, alas things are getting loving messed up faster than anticipated. Here in perth west australia , a city famous for having some of the most relaxing weather on the planet, a year ago we had an entire month of 104f (40c) weather, all humid as hell, something utterly unheard of here. Thats not normal, something weird is going on. duck monster fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Aug 24, 2012 |
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Illuminti posted:Could part of the problem be that rather than trying to scare everyone into action with worst case scenarios and telling us what we're going to have to give up, if it does in fact seem like we have a longer timescale to sort stuff out it'd be better to recommend more gradual change, under the guise of cleaner air and oil independence and advancing energy science, than we are all going to burn. Given the comfort at all costs mindset of western culture, framing the potential losses to quality of life might do a bit of good as well. But I'm assuming people actually care about how their lives will be in twenty years. Given the lack of retirement saving in the US to provide an example of future planning, I'm not optimistic about this approach either. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Can you explain this more for me? How can "things" be as bad as they are ever going to be? Climate change is accelerating and there's absolutely no reason to think it won't continue to do so. Not only that, we're far above the worst case scenario of emissions that have been laid out by the IPCC. Put simply, things aren't as bad as they are ever going to be AND things continue to be worse than the "worst case scenario" predictions put forth by the establishment. The IPCC seems to be more concerned with ensuring that we have rapid and unrealistic change with the primary burden of the effort being placed on the back of developing nations (I.E. through large scale extraction of rare earth and radioactive materials, carbon trading and reduction schemes which benefit the established Industrial Powers, forced emissions reductions) and scaring us to do so. The near fanatical focus on the worst-case scenario is not how you enact change. Its how your message gets dismissed as End-Times Theology. Besides that, its a matter of perspective. The projections are terrible right now. Now you can do something to change that and ensure that things will be mitigated (even if its still going to keep getting worse) as much as possible through whatever means you so choose. You don't try and use that to sell climate change to the general population (The Day After Tomorrow really hosed that one up) because it just won't jive when it starts sounding like "Your Grand-Parents and their Grand-Parents hosed this up for us, and so did you!". UP AND ADAM posted:I don't think this thread is any sort of exhaustive survey of climate change politics and scholarship in America. If you're interested in geoengineering ideas, look some up on google scholar or a friend in university's credentials, or a pop-sci article somewhere. No! Of course its not an exhaustive survey of anything other than a bare minimum of the articles. We probably should start a new climate change thread with a comprehensive list of articles for the interested reader... (Speaking of something we can do) On 5, yes the parameters are quite solid (And I am all for even more stringent observation and the resources being put into it). But at the same time, Global Warming is an economic and social problem. The science in it is simply presenting the problem and providing the projections. Do I believe that there are some doomsayers on the IPCC and in the Metereological Journals who have an agenda? You bet your rear end I do. Are they really lying about Global Warming? No. Are things really going to be as bad as they say they are going to be? Well, if we continue talking in terms of cuts in gains of future emissions they quite probably... Are there certain results which definitely get highlighted and pushed forward in the field while other results might be given the shaft in favor of scaring the living bejeeebuses out of the public and politicians? God yes! On 4. What are you going to do with everyone in the Middle East? Only 100 years ago they were nomads. Today their complete livelihoods depend on Oil extraction and shipping. Any attempts to fix the problems of emissions are going to eliminate (or at least greatly downsize) the shipping and oil extraction industries. What are we going to do about them? Even normal migration into Europe is met with the fear that Islamists are going to begin installing a Caliphate. On 4 Again, The large amount of Rare Earth Minerals needed for renewables are going to need to come from somewhere. More than likely they are going to come from Latin America, Africa and Asia. The Developing and Third worlds are going to suffer needlessly while being sold the lie that Resource Extraction leads to long term prosperity... Again. On 4 once more, there will need to be a recognition from Environmentalists that their enemies are not recreational land users. The idiocy of targeting the kind of folks who would have the most vested interest in preserving and maintaining the land who would more than likely be most able to get out there and do restoration projects is beyond me (Hell, even the off-roaders if you can get them a keg of beer after you are done). Its going to require a hell of a lot of accommodation and cooperation with people rather than expecting them to accommodate and accept you. On 4 one last time (I was taking a shower and an Idea popped in my head). The best possible solutions to Climate Change are going to be the cheapest ones. That is a no-brainer. One really good way which is going to require quite a bit of action on the part of activists is going to be the loosening and removal of Mopeds from Motorcycle classifications. The Moped could possibly replace at least 50% of the personal transportation needs of those who do not ride a motorcycle and live within 20 miles of where they work (I.E. I think Motorcycles could possibly solve the needs of everyone out past 20 miles). This combined with slightly more ambitious commuter rail schemes would allow an easy sell to folks towards keeping costs down while allowing them the freedom to maintain a larger vehicle for groceries, group trips and journeys to see relatives. That would go a long way in reducing congestion and lessening C02 impact. On 3, at one point I remember reading that there were plans in the 1960's to alleviate the concerns over water in the American Southwest through a trans-national canal from British Columbia down through to Arizona collecting and diverting water run-off that otherwise would flow into the Sea. Now god-damned would that have been expensive (And quite possibly ecologically damaging). But it was the sort of crazy engineering idea that would and could possibly solve and alleviate the problems that are plaguing the Colorado River now. Now wouldn't that have been a sight to see! And at last, it doesn't matter if it is hypocritical to maintain the United States' living standards in light of Climate Change. Its going to be what happens. Its what happened in the past when we promised that we were going to help other folks out and raise their living standards, and its what will be ignored in the future when we say we are going to all have to tighten our belts (not really).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Where should you move to in 45 years? I live in New Orleans currently, which is under sea level by a good bit. I am assuming New Orleans wont be here ? Is that true? I've seen this brought out by several friends that as we have ocean rises etc.. New Orleans eventually will just be overtaken. So where are we to go?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Yeah, we should start that thread. I am one of those lazy nihilists like you said though, so I don't want to make it, but maybe I could suggest articles. It's 2012, and we have the internet- there's gotta be some kind of mass epiphany of consciousness of working towards greater global harmony and justice soon, right? Scientists aren't usually equipped to look at these kind of problems, but I think that they should enter the sphere of politics and speak out for what they see. I don't have any idea how we can avoid more suffering and exploitation of poor people, but I want to attempt globalization differently than has happened the past 200 years. I'm sure the fields of sociology and economics have some new ideas to try out. I was in an environmentally focused program in college, and a lot of the people there were your sportsmen, woodsmen, fishermen. So, my experience is that the newest generation of those folks are eager to learn from people with expertise in natural systems, because they are knowledgeable about the things that they enjoy most. I think there was a recognition that outdoorsmen can enjoy using the land responsibly, and the fees from their licenses and such were very helpful and an A+ to idea manage those lands. So I haven't heard much enmity for those groups, but maybe lobbyists and big-city types feel or think differently- has there been much marginalization of these groups that you've found? There was always an undercurrent of unbridled capitalism being the main culprit, honestly. Only a few came out and spoke on it directly, but it was always the implication at the core of most any environmental issue. I also don't know about these bullying environmental groups. If a country doesn't like the terms of whatever treaty or promise it made, it can just break them. What recourse is there? Their pernicious influence has done far more good than bad, and I just don't see them directing any country's decisions all that effectively. I'd love to drive a moped. I'd even maybe do it in a blighted sprawling American city, if I could, but it snows a ton here. Mopeds are dope. From British Columbia, they would have built a canal down to Arizona? Or just to the Colorado River? That's a crazy plan. Maybe it would have worked; though I trust the judgment of whatever scientists and engineers said at the time. They've been studying this stuff for a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
speaking posted:The IPCC seems to be more concerned with ensuring that we have rapid and unrealistic change with the primary burden of the effort being placed on the back of developing nations (I.E. through large scale extraction of rare earth and radioactive materials, carbon trading and reduction schemes which benefit the established Industrial Powers, forced emissions reductions) and scaring us to do so. The near fanatical focus on the worst-case scenario is not how you enact change. Its how your message gets dismissed as End-Times Theology. Here's the thing, it's not a matter of perspective, you said explicitly that quote:1. Things are simultaneously as bad as they are ever going to be and doing far better than expected in terms of the projected path of climate change its anthropogenic component. This is simply not true. I don't understand how you can say they are "as bad as they are ever going to be" and "far better than expected" when it's simply not the case. I'm not interested in discussing the IPCC or that we're all going to be extinct in 200 years or anything like that. I'm saying that you are factually incorrect. Not only are things continuously getting worse, they have been worse than the projections put forth by the establishment. Not only that, even the establishment admits that things will get worse. I have never seen someone put forth the idea that things are as bad as they are ever going to be and are better than earlier projections w/r/t the climate issue. You're just going to have to substantiate it better. I take a great deal of issue with your other points (the oversimplification of peoples views on climate change was really bad) but there's just no point in posting pages disagreeing with you if you aren't able to at least admit you're way off base on the first one. Illuminti posted:I was under the impression that the IPCC's predictions have been consistently over what is actually observed, even if the trend is up. I can't find any graph showing this that isn't from some kind of frothing at the mouth non believer in global warming and at the risk of causing some gnashing of teeth here's one. Ugh that his some horrible denialist bullshit and I'm not trying to scare anyone into action regarding worst case scenarios. All I'm saying is that our carbon emmissions are higher than the worst case scenario put forth by the IPCC, which is largely regarded as a very conservative institution when it comes to "worst case scenarios". I'm having trouble finding a more recent graph, but our emmissions have consitently been above the levels in the A1F1 scenario, which was the worst case that they offered as a possibility. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Aug 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I was under the impression that the IPCC's predictions have been consistently over what is actually observed, even if the trend is up. I can't find any graph showing this that isn't from some kind of frothing at the mouth non believer in global warming and at the risk of causing some gnashing of teeth here's one. I think he was talking about emission levels, not the temperature anomaly. I'm not totally sure whether the temperature anomaly has been above or below the projection trend lines since the original release of the IPCC report, but on short time-frames that shouldn't really matter. Temperature can vary from year to year depending on things like El Nino cycles, volcanos, solar variation, etc. - it's the longer term trend that matters on temperature. Edit: Oops, I misundestood what this chart was. I'll leave it though because it has some fairly recent data. The red dataset is basically "what should've happened" based on volcano forcing, solar variation, CO2, and El Nino. Black is "actual". From here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/  Worth noting I guess - we appear to currently be on the upward slope side of the curve for the solar radiation, peaking in something like 2014 - 2015 (??) lapse fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Aug 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I'm having trouble finding a more recent graph, but our emmissions have consitently been above the levels in the A1F1 scenario, which was the worst case that they offered as a possibility. This article had this:  It's not the most recent data, but it's through 2010. Note the fun little dip that I'm pretty sure was due to the global economic crisis. Anyways, yes, from what I've read, the "worst case" IPCC scenario was fairly mild and we're on that track right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 11:44
|
|
|
speaking posted:On 4. What are you going to do with everyone in the Middle East? Only 100 years ago they were nomads. Today their complete livelihoods depend on Oil extraction and shipping. Any attempts to fix the problems of emissions are going to eliminate (or at least greatly downsize) the shipping and oil extraction industries. What are we going to do about them? Even normal migration into Europe is met with the fear that Islamists are going to begin installing a Caliphate. This is some kind of joke, right? Nomads? Are you seriously not aware that the medieval Islamic world had some of the most sophisticated water treatment, irrigation, etc technologies in the world at the time? That 11th century Baghdad was a metropolis of over a million people with an integrated system of hospitals and medical schools? "What are we going to do about them?" Worry about yourself, kafir.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:This is some kind of joke, right? Nomads? Are you seriously not aware that the medieval Islamic world had some of the most sophisticated water treatment, irrigation, etc technologies in the world at the time? That 11th century Baghdad was a metropolis of over a million people with an integrated system of hospitals and medical schools? "What are we going to do about them?" Worry about yourself, kafir. We can't let the savages have nuclear technology! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
Lets look at some numbers and scenarios! Source. Assume first of all that we take a cumulative budget of global CO2 emissions required to meet the IPCC's 2 degree goal (going with the "high" budget). Now make assumptions for the growth rate in emissions and peaking date in non-annex 1 countries: 2025 for example, to allow for a reasonable level of development. What is left in the budget for annex 1 nations? Just calculate the area under the graph:  1. For both scenarios, including the somewhat more optimistic (b) graph, the reductions necessary are unprecedented. Take a look at historical CO2 mitigation over the last 50 years. Recessions, oil shocks, the soviet block collapse, coal to gas switching, French nuclear development: none have come close to the steep lines on those graphs. 2. Annex 1 countries should have peaked two years ago. 3. This CO2 budget has a 38–48% chance of not exceeding 2°C. 4. The paper was published in 2010. Emissions have since caught up from the 2009 dip - and actually exceeded original projections (it seems countries have been building their way out of recessions with massive infrastructure development). 5. Nothing other than a prolonged period of planned austerity will really work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 11:48
|
|
|
Myotis posted:5. Nothing other than a prolonged period of planned austerity will really work. How would austerity help? To end CO2 emissions, you either need to a) Pretty much cease producing most electricity, using cars, trains, planes, ships, which would plunge the world into poverty, starvation, and total collapse, or b) Massive infrastructure projects that switch from carbon emissions, eg. building massive amounts of nuclear, solar, wind, electric train systems, making buildings/cities more efficient. The latter uses carbon initially, but actually solves the problem. The former either delays it or causes enough damage we might as well have let climate change take its course. Even if you could convince everyone to live in horrid conditions and poverty for years (hint: you can't), I don't think you're taking into account how brutal the kind of global austerity needed to significantly lower carbon emissions would be. Take a look at Greece, for example. Austerity there has torn the country party. There are people starving, committing suicide, rioting, and the horrid conditions have pushed people so hard they're willing to reconsider facism in the hopes it will help. Measures that would actually reduce CO2 emissions would be worse, and the effects would be worse too. I mean, think for a moment how much our society depends on cars, trucks, and electricity. Reducing those to the point where CO2 goes down with no replacement is a disaster. Any solution to climate change should prevent mass death and suffering, or it's no better than the problem it tries to solve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
quote:I was under the impression that the IPCC's predictions have been consistently over what is actually observed, even if the trend is up. I can't find any graph showing this that isn't from some kind of frothing at the mouth non believer in global warming and at the risk of causing some gnashing of teeth here's one. You have shown me the way, sir. I don't know why I wasted all of this time reading peer reviewed articles and raw data from NASA & NOAA when, really, all I had to do was read Random Internet Guy's opinion (and manipulation of) data that he does not understand, and read a graph that is unsourced and hasn't been checked by any experts. quote:So, should we worry or not about the warming climate? It is far too binary a question. The lesson of failed past predictions of ecological apocalypse is not that nothing was happening but that the middle-ground possibilities were too frequently excluded from consideration. In the climate debate, we hear a lot from those who think disaster is inexorable if not inevitable, and a lot from those who think it is all a hoax. We hardly ever allow the moderate “lukewarmers” a voice: those who suspect that the net positive feedbacks from water vapor in the atmosphere are low, so that we face only 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of warming this century; that the Greenland ice sheet may melt but no faster than its current rate of less than 1 percent per century; that net increases in rainfall (and carbon dioxide concentration) may improve agricultural productivity; that ecosystems have survived sudden temperature lurches before; and that adaptation to gradual change may be both cheaper and less ecologically damaging than a rapid and brutal decision to give up fossil fuels cold turkey. It's commentary like this that evacuates any hope I have, because I know that this is the majority opinion. The real data is 'extremist' (which, incidentally, is why the IPCC's charts so far are watered down), because one large political body has decided that the issue is either a complete fabrication and / or a non-issue and the average person sees this as 'left-wing opinion vs right-wing opinion' rather than 'mathematical certainties that have been accurately measured with finely predictable results'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Hopefully this question doesn't get me in trouble for being a bit outside the scope of the scientific discussion, but as someone who has been lurking this thread for quite a while with significant interest, can anyone help me understand why the thread has a rating of three? Is it just the fact that people don't want to hear about how things are hosed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
There have been a couple of tangents about the merits of growing one's own carrots which annoyed a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Being Australian I don't know much about Nuclear power because we've never had it. I'm not really concerned about the safety aspects of it, I view it from a total global risk-reward aspect. However, for all those advocating it, isn't one of the main arguments time to market? i.e. It takes something like 10-15 years to plan, build and bring a nuke online, and can cost as much as $10billion per power station? Whereas if you take that $10billion and put it towards solar, wind, etc, you can start enjoying the benefits within a couple of years? I read an article on a plane about a year ago (unfortunately can't link it because I can't remember the magazine), which said for the US to ramp up nuclear would require trillions of dollars (based on building around 100 new nuclear power plants) and we wouldn't begin to see any meaningful carbon reduction until at least 2030 due to the time to market. In addition, since nuclear power has been pretty unpopular for the last 30-40 years, there simply isn't the number of required nuclear scientists, engineers, technicians available in the workforce to build facilities at that scale. So say the US decide to spend $10 trillion on "clean" power generation. From a climate change perspective, would it be better to use that money to begin building renewable plants that can provide benefits immediately, or put it into nuclear where large scale reductions in CO2 emissions won't be realised for another 15-20 years at best? (ignoring the labour shortage problem).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
You are talking about how much money you are putting into these projects with no consideration for how much power you are generating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
EscapeHere posted:So say the US decide to spend $10 trillion on "clean" power generation. From a climate change perspective, would it be better to use that money to begin building renewable plants that can provide benefits immediately, or put it into nuclear where large scale reductions in CO2 emissions won't be realised for another 15-20 years at best? (ignoring the labour shortage problem). As far as I am aware we do not have the type of tech yet to run entire cities on renewable energy like solar. We can collect it, but our battery tech is still inadequate to supply power during the night and on cloudy days. We would still be using coal plants during those times, and it would also be massively expensive. Nuclear would get the job done, and could adequately power our major cities for hundreds of years as we continue to refine and improve the assorted tech that is needed to make solar the go-to option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
quote:As far as I am aware we do not have the type of tech yet to run entire cities on renewable energy like solar. We can collect it, but our battery tech is still inadequate to supply power during the night and on cloudy days. Molten sodium batteries are pretty drat good, actually, and there are a couple of other liquid metal energy storage options currently in prototype that may be coming online in a few years. Storage is really not the insurmountable obstacle that people think it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
I understand that nuclear power, once online, would bring more Watts per dollar, and be more stable than renewables. What I'm asking is, from an environmental perspective, would it be better for climate change to reduce emissions in the short-medium term from renewables, or reduce it by a lot more, but not until 2030? i.e. by 2030, will it be too late by then anyway? With renewables, you'd have 10-15 years of cumulative reductions in CO2 output before nuclear could begin to make a dent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Molten sodium batteries are pretty drat good, actually, and there are a couple of other liquid metal energy storage options currently in prototype that may be coming online in a few years. Except storage is more effectively used for "nuclear + load leveling" rather than "renewable + supply leveling". Running a reactor full bore 24/7 with storage soaking up capacity in off-peak hours is way more reliable and economic than using it to save insolation for a rainy day. EscapeHere posted:What I'm asking is, from an environmental perspective, would it be better for climate change to reduce emissions in the short-medium term from renewables, or reduce it by a lot more, but not until 2030? A AECL ACR-1000 reactor can be built in 42 months. Any time past that is caused by regulatory hurdles (read: politics). So, we could have an army of CANDU reactors online by December 2015 if the political will materialized right now. I guess not, eh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
ductonius posted:
OK - what are the regulatory hurdles like in building new CANDU reactors at existing nuclear sites? Presumably it would be easier to do this than trying to build one in some new greenfields site with no prior nuclear facility?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
EscapeHere posted:OK - what are the regulatory hurdles like in building new CANDU reactors at existing nuclear sites? Presumably it would be easier to do this than trying to build one in some new greenfields site with no prior nuclear facility? It varies by country but the most salient feature is that it's ruled over by politicians and it's controversial, so the politicians are apt to just not do anything until forced. Anything that can be delayed will be. This makes the whole process long and drawn out and ultimatly expensive for anyone involved. For a firm example of a common delay is most places require each new reactor to be individually certified, while some places certify reactor types/designs which streamlines the whole "is it safe?" question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Honestly it might not matter anymore with all this "natural gas energy boom" bullshit that has been permeating the presidential debate all the sudden. Any collective will that may have existed to seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions (not just the 20-40% reduction from coal to nat gas) seems to be evaporating. The discussion has shifted from replacing oil and coal with renewables and nuclear, to replacing oil and coal with natural gas. EscapeHere posted:OK - what are the regulatory hurdles like in building new CANDU reactors at existing nuclear sites? Presumably it would be easier to do this than trying to build one in some new greenfields site with no prior nuclear facility? If you look back a few pages, you'll see some discussion about the current regulatory issue - the NRC was asked to re-assess spent fuel storage before allowing permits to move forward. But I think the bigger problem right now is how cheap natural gas has suddenly become. Nuclear and renewables will never go anywhere until it costs money to emit greenhouse gases. Lab research will continue, of course, and hopefully the renewable tech will continue to improve, but I wouldn't expect any big roll-outs. As for the rest of the comment... 42 months might be pretty aggressive. I don't know if it's a perfect analogy, but I think looking at the Chinese experience with the AP-1000 reactors might be instructive for how quickly this can ideally happen when there are minimal regulatory hurdles and everyone agrees it's a good idea. They are currently planning to build 14 units at 2 sites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiyang_Nuclear_Power_Plant The schedule for the first few units was a 56-month construction timeline, and all units under construction are currently ahead of that schedule. China is kind of an extreme example though because they have a lot more power than western governments to just say "gently caress you, local population, we're building a super-highway in the middle of your town", or whatever. poo poo like this gets decided by technocrats instead of the will of the people, which is a pretty big competitive advantage frankly. lapse fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Aug 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Oh, good. At least China's plans are working. I read that somewhere before but I didn't want to double check, since hope is such a precious commodity in this thread.lapse posted:Any collective will that may have existed to seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions (not just the 20-40% reduction from coal to nat gas) seems to be evaporating. Speaking of hope, is this necessarily so bad? A 20-40% reduction is better than nothing, which is what we were going to get had the economics on natural gas stayed the same. Especially if this is a torch the Republicans have taken up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Molten sodium batteries are pretty drat good, actually, and there are a couple of other liquid metal energy storage options currently in prototype that may be coming online in a few years. I think one of the biggest hurdles to "better energy storage" (as a nebulous concept) is that there isn't a lot of short-term profit in developing novel technologies and bringing them to market. For many industrial interests, anything that has no return on investment until more than two quarters out is basically pointless unless it's a given, and R&D is more of an unknown quantity. I'd love to see a sort of kickstarter for patent development. Imagine (this is incredibly optimistic) a crowdfunded patent that is licensed to the monetary benefit of the various owners. I often wonder if there was a way to get around the obvious ownership issues with labratory and facilities usage (i.e. universities) while still providing the necessaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Interesting overview of the Arctic sea ice issues and implications. It's brown trousers time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
If anyone is seeking some insight into the mind of an opponent to combatting climate change (or any other pressing environmental issue), see SilentD in the republican primary thread. His posts are awash with dishonest rhetoric, strawmen, and plain ol bile and ignorance. A real class-A American piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
If you ever find yourself in that mood where you want to read something that is guaranteed to make you feel intensely frustrated then allow me to recommend you the daily mail (lol) message boards. Specifically threads about how the world is actually moving into an ice age
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
thip posted:If you ever find yourself in that mood where you want to read something that is guaranteed to make you feel intensely frustrated then allow me to recommend you the daily mail (lol) message boards. Specifically threads about how the world is actually moving into an ice age I was reading the comments on a climate change thread on ArsTechnica the other day and people were arguing if the mid-west turns in to a desert we'll be able to grow all the crops we need on Greenland. Its impossible to persuade some people. Belief in or worry about AGW has actually fallen in recent years in the US,UK and Australia. What is it with WASPs and utter cuntishness?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Here in Canada, right up to the economic downturn (around 2008) the top issue in the mind of Canadians was the environment; so much so that it forced our minority conservative government to shuffle the cabinet so as to replace the current rookie environmental minister (Ronna Ambrose) with that of a more combative and experienced deputy (John Baird). It put the conservatives on the defensive - and in my opinion had the economic downturn not happened it could have bitten them hard in the upcoming election (Of course, the uncharismatic Stephane Dion did not help much.) That being said, Canada was faced with a decision long ago as to whether to continue on its path as a multilateral country with strong diplomatic ties and bank on its reputation as a peaceful broker (Land mine treaty, Suez Canal crisis, Montreal protocol on air quality, etc..), or, take advantage of its immense newfound oil resources and accept a realpolitik go-it-alone attitude with the United States. Nobody can dispute that the latter has helped to bring in more development and some job opportunities... Nevertheless; the downside of choosing the path of an oil (or other resource-based country) is that the policies of the host country start to reflect the interests of companies like Exxon, Shell, and so forth. If a climate action bill could jeapordise profits and development - then it must be changed, and so they have. Heck - our government has made such a hard push against environmental nonprofit groups that it even lead to Dr. David Suzuki to quit being the head of his organization for environmental justice just so he could speak his mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
That's a real shame to hear, Guigui. Unfortunately, I think that as oil becomes more scarce and we begin to rely more and more on unconventional oil, that kind of aggressive anti-environmentalism will only become more pronounced in world governments. I think there is an unspoken recognition among most world governments that oil is basically what is keeping modern society afloat. We're now playing a game of generational hot potato; everyone hoping that the oil doesn't run out during their lifespan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:That's a real shame to hear, Guigui. Unfortunately, I think that as oil becomes more scarce and we begin to rely more and more on unconventional oil, that kind of aggressive anti-environmentalism will only become more pronounced in world governments. Climate change will destroy agriculture long before fossil fuels are depleted. The amount of coal in the ground in the states would add like 300 ppm CO2 equivalent to the atmosphere if you extracted and burnt it all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
In Realpolitick terms I wouldn't be surprised if we see some attempt to unite the Americas economically. Forget Eurasia. This would be an ideal time to plan the phase out of most oil demands with the introduction of nuclear power generation and desalinization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:That's a real shame to hear, Guigui. Unfortunately, I think that as oil becomes more scarce and we begin to rely more and more on unconventional oil, that kind of aggressive anti-environmentalism will only become more pronounced in world governments. Interestingly your position is already supported by Canada's current actions, as the vast majority of our oil reserves come from unconventional sources such as Tar Sands and Shale deposits. While Canada has been lauded abroad in the past as a bastion of "social justice" and the like, in reality we've always pretty much marched in step to the USA in terms of our foreign and domestic policies. Which I suppose makes sense, given how easily they could annex us if they really wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
McDowell posted:In Realpolitick terms I wouldn't be surprised if we see some attempt to unite the Americas economically. Forget Eurasia. This would be an ideal time to plan the phase out of most oil demands with the introduction of nuclear power generation and desalinization. Sadly, the increased focus on the oilsands and the advancement of natural gas in the United States means that you're not going to see nuclear power of any variety popping up in North America, barring something dramatic happening. India or China are far more likely to beat the Western world to the nuclear punch if they do at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Rime posted:Interestingly your position is already supported by Canada's current actions, as the vast majority of our oil reserves come from unconventional sources such as Tar Sands and Shale deposits. While Canada has been lauded abroad in the past as a bastion of "social justice" and the like, in reality we've always pretty much marched in step to the USA in terms of our foreign and domestic policies. Which is likely one of big factors pushing for more development into less efficient oil extraction techniques in Canada. Perhaps it was the 9-11 tragedy, pehaps it was a rethink of the energy policy of the United States, or perhaps it was none of these... If I look at the situation from the eyes of the US - when given the choice of either purchasing oil from middle-eastern countries to which the US is on shaky terms, from latin American countries that have cut off supply, to Canadian oil right across the border to which American investors have access... ... well, it does not take much for an energy security expert to choose the latter, despite the bigger environmental effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Bumping this because it's a good thread, and also in case anyone is like me and just checks their bookmarks rather than browsing the forums, there's a new thread to discuss the practical elements of Energy Generation. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
So, this is a really stupid question, but I'm having a tough time parsing all the readings and articles in the thread, so I'll just ask: precisely how hosed are we? Are we "just" red-alert-holy-poo poo-if-we-keep-doing-this-we're-doomed level, or has the apocalypse point pretty much already come and gone? Because I'll just start leaving all my lights on right now if that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Doomsayer posted:So, this is a really stupid question, but I'm having a tough time parsing all the readings and articles in the thread, so I'll just ask: precisely how hosed are we? Are we "just" red-alert-holy-poo poo-if-we-keep-doing-this-we're-doomed level, or has the apocalypse point pretty much already come and gone? Because I'll just start leaving all my lights on right now if that's the case. Here's a small slice of how hosed we are: The value oil companies is based on about 4-5 times as much oil as we could burn and remain under an increase of 2 degrees Celsius. To not exceed the number, they would have to write off about $20 trillion in assets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 05:47
|
|