|
I had an insightful conversation with an american friend about climate change the other day. Me: "Complaining about the costs of climate mitigation is a bit like dying of cancer on a hospital bed and the doctor starts umming and arring about the cost of the chemo" Him: "Clearly you have no idea how the american healthcare system works" And somehow it all suddenly made sense.......
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
http://www.xpats.com/belgian-celebrities-and-scientists-call-prosecution-climate-crimes 11 Belgian celebrities (and some scientists) are suing the 4 belgian governments (the federal one and the regions) for not doing enough to combat climate change. ... that's certainly a unique approach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
double nine posted:http://www.xpats.com/belgian-celebrities-and-scientists-call-prosecution-climate-crimes This is the problem with climate change at the heart. It requires cooperation on a scale that usually requires nazis to elicit. Even if Belgium became 100% focused on combatting climate change, dedicating their GDP to the effort, enslaving their people to manually pump co2 underground, it wouldn't be enough if everyone else doesn't do anything. Also for all the hot weather Europe has been getting it hasn't helped them meet their Kyoto obligations. (I guess the atmosphere isn't the only place with hot air  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
gently caress even the US can't act alone- stopping climate change requires near perfect cooperation between China, the US, India, and Russia. Oh and all these countries must be led by people who are focused on something beyond the next election cycle. Good luck! duck monster posted:I had an insightful conversation with an american friend about climate change the other day. This highlights another roadblock- we really don't have a clue what the actual effects are going to be. This is not supposed to be a direct analogy but imagine you have a condition that has a 1% chance of leading to cancer. How much do you spend to prevent it? What are the risks involved in correct it? The problem is Obama asks his scientists 'ok we know CC is real, what are the effects of +5 C going to be?' and they come back with 'maybe this, maybe that, perhaps this, probably not that. Maybe we should do this, but we don't understand the mechanism too well and it could bite us in the rear end' what exactly is he supposed to do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
tsa posted:gently caress even the US can't act alone- stopping climate change requires near perfect cooperation between China, the US, India, and Russia. Oh and all these countries must be led by people who are focused on something beyond the next election cycle. Good luck! The first problem could be helped by technology transfer and climate reparations I think. Unfortunately that's not GDP growth maximising in the short term so you're hosed on the second one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Some other news I came across - Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissionsquote:Summary: Research has identified, for the first time, how global warming is related to the amount of carbon emitted. A team of researchers has derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions since the late 1800s when human-made carbon emissions began. The results are in accord with previous data from climate models. I don't have access to the full article, so I'll have to go off of this. It's probably not too accurate, but going off of this suggests +1°C for every 1 trillion tonnes of CO2. Seems like a lot. However, that's a mere 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2, and we emit quite a few gigatonnes of CO2 each year. A change of +1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to approximately +7.820536 gigatonnes. I wonder how long it would take to get +0.1°C, then? Supposedly, that would be about 100 gigatonnes of CO2; that's about +12.79ppm. So, let's go back a few years and see how long it takes to meet or exceed that: October-2014: 395.93ppm. October-2013: 393.66ppm. October-2012: 391.01ppm. October-2011: 388.96ppm. October-2010: 387.20ppm. October-2009: 384.39ppm. October-2008: 382.99ppm. Oh. quote:They also show that the build-up of carbon emitted over the last 200 years will then last for many centuries to millennia, even if carbon emissions are subsequently phased out. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
I hate that paper purely because of that press release. First theoretical model of carbon emissions causing global warming my rear end. The abstract of course, says nothing of the sort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I hate that paper purely because of that press release. First theoretical model of carbon emissions causing global warming my rear end. The abstract of course, says nothing of the sort. the abstract posted:Climate model experiments reveal that transient global warming is nearly proportional to cumulative carbon emissions on multi-decadal to centennial timescales. However, it is not quantitatively understood how this near-linear dependence between warming and cumulative carbon emissions arises in transient climate simulations6. Here, we present a theoretically derived equation of the dependence of global warming on cumulative carbon emissions over time. For an atmosphere–ocean system, our analysis identifies a surface warming response to cumulative carbon emissions of 1.5 ± 0.7 K for every 1,000 Pg of carbon emitted. This surface warming response is reduced by typically 10–20% by the end of the century and beyond. The climate response remains nearly constant on multi-decadal to centennial timescales as a result of partially opposing effects of oceanic uptake of heat and carbon8. The resulting warming then becomes proportional to cumulative carbon emissions after many centuries, as noted earlier9. When we incorporate estimates of terrestrial carbon uptake10, the surface warming response is reduced to 1.1 ± 0.5 K for every 1,000 Pg of carbon emitted, but this modification is unlikely to significantly affect how the climate response changes over time. We suggest that our theoretical framework may be used to diagnose the global warming response in climate models and mechanistically understand the differences between their projections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Notice how the abstract doesn't say "first"  Obviously there's something improved in this model, but it wasn't the first with the concept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Seems a bit unsophisticated at first blush (and I'd hazard to say redundant with ECS/TCS), but here are their results mapped with climate models from the study: RCP 8.5 assumes ~1250ppm in 2100. I seriously doubt we're going above 800, so much more likely the 6.0 pathway as a worst case scenario (750ppm in 2100). That puts us at 3C above pre-industrial, 2.2C above 2014 using the study's methodology, if I am reading that graph correctly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, your mealy-mouthed arrogance is loving sickening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I seriously doubt we're going above 800 Why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Seems a bit unsophisticated at first blush (and I'd hazard to say redundant with ECS/TCS), but here are their results mapped with climate models from the study: I this. "I seriously doubt we're going above 800, so [we won't]". Phew, I can sleep sound tonight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Why? 1250ppm (or a similar number) assumes no technological advancement in energy production, e.g. no supplanting of oil, coal, and natural gas that we burn right now. Further, that we will continue to need to burn these fuels so that would also assume stasis in electrical grids, engine technology and the like. The 8.5 pathway basically assumes not just increasing fossil fuel usage, but accelerating fossil fuel usage. Think about that. So that would mean very large economic growth that needs all of this energy being burned. The recent history of humanity is one of very, very rapid technological advancement. The scenario where we have an accelerating economy WITHOUT large technological leaps is one that I would say is not possible. 800ppm guessimate is a much more realistic upper bound that takes into account burgeoning non-fossil fuel energy sources, widespread usage of electricity from batteries in vehicles, and probable advancements in moonshot energy production like fusion over the course of the next few decades. Salt Fish posted:I this. "I seriously doubt we're going above 800, so [we won't]". Phew, I can sleep sound tonight. bpower posted:Holy poo poo, your mealy-mouthed arrogance is loving sickening. It's called an opinion. Relax. You think they have any clue what emissions are going to be in 2100? They have no idea. Arkane fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Arkane posted:It's called an opinion. Relax. You think they have any clue what emissions are going to be in 2100? They have no idea. Clearly we have some idea. The way that you plan for the future is you take your available information and you make the best possible plan you can. What you don't do is throw up your hands, declare it impossible to know, and make no plans. Even an animal as dumb as a squirrel makes plans for winter so I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Clearly we have some idea. The bounds for their concentration projections in 2100 is 450ppm and 1250ppm. That should give you some idea of the type of the uncertainties involved...to the extent that we have an idea, it's "higher than today." Salt Fish posted:What you don't do is throw up your hands, declare it impossible to know, and make no plans. Even an animal as dumb as a squirrel makes plans for winter so I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that to you. Kinda weird to say after I just made a guess. I think that 800ppm is a reasonable upper bound. I also think that temperature will be around 1 to 1.5C higher in 2100 relative to 2000. Not coincidentally, climate sensitivity according to multiple recent studies is about 1.5C per doubling of CO2. 800 would be a doubling off of 400ppm. So these are at least mildly educated guesses, not random numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Cheer up about the carbon sitting in the atmosphere for 1000 years, last I checked the new technology to capture the carbon back out of the air is down to a mere 100$ a ton. lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
hiddenmovement posted:Cheer up about the carbon sitting in the atmosphere for 1000 years, last I checked the new technology to capture the carbon back out of the air is down to a mere 100$ a ton. New trees are free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:New trees are free. Tell the Chinese that! They've been spending a lot of money to unsuccessfully plant a lot of new trees: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21613334-vast-tree-planting-arid-regions-failing-halt-deserts-march-great-green-wall
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:New trees are free. They involve an opportunity cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:New trees are free. And a temporary, short term solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Honestly we are probably going to have suck it up and pay for carbon recapture in the coming decades so we better pray that we can reduce that cost because holy lol 100$+ a ton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
hiddenmovement posted:Honestly we are probably going to have suck it up and pay for carbon recapture in the coming decades so we better pray that we can reduce that cost because holy lol 100$+ a ton. Please, the real money is in atmospheric doping. Why yes I will sell you vast quantities of a proprietary chemical needed to "save the world," why thank you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please, the real money is in atmospheric doping. Why yes I will sell you vast quantities of a proprietary chemical needed to "save the world," why thank you! This sounds like the plot of a James Bond movie
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:This sounds like the plot of a James Bond movie It was the premise for the setting of the Snowpiercer movie - the earth was frozen because people threw poo poo into the atmosphere that worked really god drat well at cooling poo poo off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
There's not a lot of money in seeding sulphates in the troposphere - most projections are that we can get a pretty dramatic cooling effect off just a billion dollars or so using balloons and high altitude tanker aircraft. If (when) we do it the media will go insane though because all of the crazy side effects so maybe buy Fox shares in 2035
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
hiddenmovement posted:There's not a lot of money in seeding sulphates in the troposphere - most projections are that we can get a pretty dramatic cooling effect off just a billion dollars or so using balloons and high altitude tanker aircraft. I remember those from Fate of the World. Are there more side effects other than loving with the weather patterns and causing draughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
double nine posted:I remember those from Fate of the World. Are there more side effects other than loving with the weather patterns and causing draughts? We don't know yet. Studies are under way. They have some idea based on other periods in human history when Volcanoes went and deposited an enourmous sum of dust into the upper atmosphere but the specifics of it are pretty unknown at this point. The other big problem to consider is governance. Which country decides that THEY have the right to massively pollute the atmosphere in the name of humanity? What if the seeding adversely affects one or two countries really badly? What if the pollutants all settle over Norway and cause other weird damage? Who pays for that? etc etc. I think I remember someone (might have been Gwynne Dyer?) bringing up the possibility of a smaller nation that is being really badly hosed by climate change get desperate and decide to sulphate seed as an emergency countermeasure to save their nation (Bangladesh). Do they have the right to do that? I have little doubt at this point that we are going to attempt this measure, simply because we are on course to crash through that 2 degree barrier and we at least have some idea of what sulphate seeding does based on volcanic activity. In this case, the devil we know is a far better prospect, even if it does cause a terrible drought across a good portion of the earths surface. Still beats the Amazon burning down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
hiddenmovement posted:There's not a lot of money in seeding sulphates in the troposphere - most projections are that we can get a pretty dramatic cooling effect off just a billion dollars or so using balloons and high altitude tanker aircraft. I won't even pretend to be well-versed in climate science but isn't something like this a temporary fix at best? If the carbon we're putting in the atmosphere is going to stay there for centuries or more, won't we be in the same dire straights as soon as whoever is doing the seeding can't or won't do it anymore? Possibly in an even worse predicament, since the artificial cooling will likely coincide with a green-light by industry to pump even more carbon into the atmosphere in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
You guys have probably discussed this at some point but I'm in an environmental systems theory class and we had a discussion about limits to growth and it's a phenomenal look at the interactions of the many systems of the planet through a model. It makes a compelling case for the need for not continually expanding population in addition to sustainable policies like pollution reduction, land management, yield increases, and a change in our entire system being based on infinite material accumulation. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Yqbsi4BNuNZi11NDNKLTF4azQ/view?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:I won't even pretend to be well-versed in climate science but isn't something like this a temporary fix at best? If the carbon we're putting in the atmosphere is going to stay there for centuries or more, won't we be in the same dire straights as soon as whoever is doing the seeding can't or won't do it anymore? Possibly in an even worse predicament, since the artificial cooling will likely coincide with a green-light by industry to pump even more carbon into the atmosphere in the meantime. Oh yes, it is absolutely a stop gap measure. Scientists have been deliberately avoiding talking about this topic until the last few years precisely because they feared it would give industry some perverse moral greenlight to do whatever the hell they wanted. But I think we know by now that industry will just do whatever the gently caress it wants anyway, even if the consequences are apocalyptic. My thinking is (and this is a layman predicting the future - so take it with a huge grain of salt), that in about a decade we will start to see really dramatic consequences from C02 emissions (i.e Bangladesh sinks, there are wars over fresh water, parts of the eastern US seaboard are uninhabitable after a particularly terrible storm season, fuckloads of dead and displaced people basically), and there will be a rapid attempt to decarbonize in a hurry. It will be the war on terror of the 2030s. But it will be too late, and we will need to turn to sulphate seeding to buy us time to execute both decarbonization and extraordinarily expensive carbon recapture technologies to pull the planet back from 800ppm+. The human and economic consequences of this scenario are pretty huge, but it still beats the literal end of the world. On the other hand, at least we will get to live in interesting times! EDIT: Oh also the oceans don't stop absorbing C02 and becoming more acidic just because we blocked out the sun, so whatever ecological nightmare is happening under the water still keeps happening hiddenmovement fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:At we can shout them down as 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest recorded year I guess I should have waited a few days more: quote:November 2014 was the second warmest November in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Blowdryer posted:You guys have probably discussed this at some point but I'm in an environmental systems theory class and we had a discussion about limits to growth and it's a phenomenal look at the interactions of the many systems of the planet through a model. It makes a compelling case for the need for not continually expanding population in addition to sustainable policies like pollution reduction, land management, yield increases, and a change in our entire system being based on infinite material accumulation. Surely you were just studying that to see how wrong a group of people in the 70s could possibly be? The Malthusian doomsday purveyors of the 70s (The Population Bomb was another popular text) come across as self-righteous dumb asses in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
 I think stuff like this is second only to oil industry money in actively creating climate-change deniers. I can't believe that model was ever taken seriously. Anyway, I like this blog post, the simulator for it he wrote, and especially his articles he wrote for American Scientist: http://bit-player.org/2012/world3-the-public-beta e: ...as much as it pains me to be in agreement with Arkane about something. 
crazypenguin fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:And a temporary, short term solution. Tree turnover doesn't matter if the new forests are persistent, if that's what you were getting at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Tree turnover doesn't matter if the new forests are persistent, if that's what you were getting at. I seem to recall that trees are less effective carbon sinks as they age. Which makes me envision mass planting followed by clearcutting and throwing logs down mineshafts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:I seem to recall that trees are less effective carbon sinks as they age. Which makes me envision mass planting followed by clearcutting and throwing logs down mineshafts. Better to cut the trees down and make buildings out of them, that still captures the co2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Better to cut the trees down and make buildings out of them, that still captures the co2. What happens when the buildings rot away, or catch fire?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:What happens when the buildings rot away, or catch fire? Well the first one is okay, the second not so good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Trees and their products are carbon neutral. Every tree planted will eventually die and release its carbon back into the air. Every 2x4 or piece of plywood used to build a house will eventually burn, or be buried in a landfill when the house is demolished. As far as I know trees have no place whatsoever in a discussion of carbon sequestering, unless the plan is to cut the trees and bury them deep underground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:55
|
|