|
Hollismason posted:Can someone explain this whole heat bubble because of humidity that's going to happen over the Mid West Ask in the weather thread.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Ah, I see - so you meant to write "Cities with large roads typically don't have empty streets, or public transportation." The idea that if we increase efficiency in an HVAC system by reducing pipe bends, that instead we'll just run things colder/hotter doesn't actually play out in reality. Otherwise LEED would be impossible. Ditto in industrial contexts where a reduction in feedstock needs doesn't magically increase demand or even the plant capacity. Improvements in efficiency is a critical part of reducing the post-climate cost of growth to something achievable for the developing world. You can already see simple examples, where increased effiencies in LED lighting, power inverters and solar cells are helping to deliver light and power to communities that previously had none with no long term carbon emissions. None of that would have been possible at an achievable cost without these gains in effiencies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Overflight posted:Again, how am I supposed to live my life with this knowledge? I refuse to raise a family, any and all career goals seem useless to me since society as we know it might not even survive the next 20 years, let alone 100, and most people and family treat me like an annoyance at best. Is the mere act of existing and not being dead supposed to give me some intrinsic joy? Because I don't get it and getting medicated for it doesn't seem like a good prospect because I am afraid of becoming too optimistic and then making choices like raising a family that then will be stuck in this hell and die painfully cursing my name. Get help you whiny goon (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The idea that if we increase efficiency in an HVAC system by reducing pipe bends, that instead we'll just run things colder/hotter doesn't actually play out in reality. Otherwise LEED would be impossible. A reduction in feedstock needs reduces the cost of the product, thus the product can be bought by more people or at higher volume by existing buyers. If this demand exceeds existing production capacity, then new production facilities will be built. Even if a company increases efficiency and does not pass savings on to consumers, thus not influencing demand (which is likely to be economically unfavorable, since the value of raw materials is multiplied when they are converted to products, that is, a higher volume of product is generally preferable to a slightly increased margin), then the company will have more capital to spend elsewhere rather than consumers having it. Increasing efficiency is environmentally valuable when consumption or production are limited by policy. Introducing efficient power systems to areas that previously had none at all is not an example where Jevon's Paradox applies, since there is no increase in efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Jevons Paradox, among other feedback mechanisms, is known, and I never said it wasn't??? ? Do you still think that your unrealistic example of $0.03/gallon fuel disproves Jevon's Paradox? I don't think this is a productive course of discussion. The rebound effect is real but the existence of Jevons paradox is not necessarily real. It requires a rebound effect greater than the reduction due to increased efficiency, which is silly for a lot of things (HVAC, anything that's always on, cooking). It can also be mitigated very easily by legislation, like increasing the gas tax as price/distance drops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:The rebound effect is real but the existence of Jevons paradox is not necessarily real. It requires a rebound effect greater than the reduction due to increased efficiency, which is silly for a lot of things (HVAC, anything that's always on, cooking). It can also be mitigated very easily by legislation, like increasing the gas tax as price/distance drops. Like I said in the post above, policy is necessary to guarantee environmental benefits. Whether the effect exists for things like your examples depends on how the energy is paid for and the relationship between energy price and environmental damage done per Joule used.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:A reduction in feedstock needs reduces the cost of the product, thus the product can be bought by more people or at higher volume by existing buyers. If this demand exceeds existing production capacity, then new production facilities will be built. Even if a company increases efficiency and does not pass savings on to consumers, thus not influencing demand (which is likely to be economically unfavorable, since the value of raw materials is multiplied when they are converted to products, that is, a higher volume of product is generally preferable to a slightly increased margin), then the company will have more capital to spend elsewhere rather than consumers having it. The increase in effieicnt is what enabled those systems to be cheap enough to deploy. Effiency itself is a valuable component, of course it is meaningless alone, but for example marginal improvement in electrical efficiency can decrease peak power consumption. Peak consumption is challenging for low carbon grids to deal with cheaply. The smaller the duck curve due to effiency gains, the cheaper the cost to reduce the carbon impact of the grid. Placid Marmot posted:Like I said in the post above, policy is necessary to guarantee environmental benefits. Whether the effect exists for things like your examples depends on how the energy is paid for and the relationship between energy price and environmental damage done per Joule used. Of course policy is required, but effiency is how you can make those policies cost palatable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
NASA says this year - this one, right now - is probably going to be 1.5C over pre-industrial, which is the Paris 'let's try this' target. It remains to be seen whether countries will actually abide by their commitments made in Paris. The question in my mind is how scientists are feeling about the 2C goal now as compared to in Kyoto given the new models and studies we have now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Mozi posted:NASA says this year - this one, right now - is probably going to be 1.5C over pre-industrial, which is the Paris 'let's try this' target. It remains to be seen whether countries will actually abide by their commitments made in Paris. Is geoengineering on or off the table? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The increase in effieicnt is what enabled those systems to be cheap enough to deploy. Effiency itself is a valuable component, of course it is meaningless alone, but for example marginal improvement in electrical efficiency can decrease peak power consumption. Peak consumption is challenging for low carbon grids to deal with cheaply. The smaller the duck curve due to effiency gains, the cheaper the cost to reduce the carbon impact of the grid. More efficient industrial and commercial processes and devices are made for the financial benefit of industry and consumers, not for easier grid maintenance or reduced overall carbon emissions, except where such parameters are mandated (policy) or made a selling point (i.e. off-peak modes); it's coincidental if improved efficiency smooths the power curve. If a smoothed power curve and reduced overall carbon were the target, then energy sources would be taxed according to how much they pollute, along with incentives to reduce peak loads, and industry and consumers would have incentives to improve efficiency and reduce total consumption. quote:Of course policy is required, but effiency is how you can make those policies cost palatable. We are past "palatable" costs for policies. Consumption is the problem, and improved efficiency is not the solution - reduced consumption is. In other news, the first six months of this year had the record lowest Arctic sea ice extent and July is tracking the record of 2012.  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Is geoengineering on or off the table? Well, if we're going to destroy the earth anyway, we may as well do it as quickly as possible
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
TheBlackVegetable posted:Well, if we're going to destroy the earth anyway, we may as well do it as quickly as possible So that's a no to geoengineering then 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most cities in the US do not have public transportation as a meaningful substitute. That's really the central issue; a poo poo load of Americans despise mass transit and just don't understand that it's actually beneficial. It's more efficient, relieves traffic, and can shorten your commute time if you live in a place where traffic jams up and the transit system isn't awful. Buuuuuuuuut proper mass transit projects aren't cheap, people tend to not think much about their commute costs because they assume "have a car" is a basic life function, and a lot of people are against it because they'll have to share it with those people. Mass transit also doesn't work very well as a for-profit enterprise and this is a nation where a significant portion of the population thinks that privatizing roads is a fine and good idea that will most certainly not backfire at all. There's also convenience; Americans are impatient as hell and don't want to wait for the bus but they can get in their cars whenever they want. So they can go sit in traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's really the central issue; a poo poo load of Americans despise mass transit and just don't understand that it's actually beneficial. It's more efficient, relieves traffic, and can shorten your commute time if you live in a place where traffic jams up and the transit system isn't awful. Even sitting in traffic is faster than mass transit. Japan has a loving amazing mass transit system but you end up commuting for loving ever. Living by the stations is expensive so you have to transit from a bus to the train to walking - its really easy to end up with a 2 hour commute for not terribly far distances. Using a personal car is a bad choice not because of traffic but because its really expensive. Tax on car ownership is crazy and the tax rises as the car gets older - its really cheap to buy old cars but you pay a lot in yearly tax - and the inspections are severe. All it does is make car ownership into a class thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Even sitting in traffic is faster than mass transit. Japan has a loving amazing mass transit system but you end up commuting for loving ever. Living by the stations is expensive so you have to transit from a bus to the train to walking - its really easy to end up with a 2 hour commute for not terribly far distances. I somehow think that it would just be worse if they all had cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Even sitting in traffic is faster than mass transit. Japan has a loving amazing mass transit system but you end up commuting for loving ever. Living by the stations is expensive so you have to transit from a bus to the train to walking - its really easy to end up with a 2 hour commute for not terribly far distances. In the countryside it's easier to own a car, but also places close to a station are cheaper as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
People who talk about stopping climate change sound so completely naive. I remember sitting in a policy class with a bunch of environmental science grad students and all of them were so confused when presented with examples of politicians ignoring science and models. And then years later listening to Geoffrey West talk about how we're all doomed if we continue in this cycle of increasing crises, and now years later people are still pretending like magically anyone is going to listen. Sometimes I think we're wiping out species just so they won't stare at us with their stupid condemnatory froggy faces. For those of you who are actually in the trenches, at what point did/do you just throw your hands up and accept that the tragedy of the commons is unavoidable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Copenhagen 2009 and the complete fart that was its resolution was probably about the point where I realized that civilization as we know it is going to be hosed and there's nothing we can do to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The increase in effieicnt is what enabled those systems to be cheap enough to deploy. Effiency itself is a valuable component, of course it is meaningless alone, but for example marginal improvement in electrical efficiency can decrease peak power consumption. Peak consumption is challenging for low carbon grids to deal with cheaply. The smaller the duck curve due to effiency gains, the cheaper the cost to reduce the carbon impact of the grid. If there's one place where Jevon's paradox _does_ apply, it's at the macroeconomic level. So a general improvement in electrical efficiency will surely be more than offset by an increase in the quantity demanded for electricity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
parcs posted:If there's one place where Jevon's paradox _does_ apply, it's at the macroeconomic level. So a general improvement in electrical efficiency will surely be more than offset by an increase in the quantity demanded for electricity. Show your work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:For those of you who are actually in the trenches, at what point did/do you just throw your hands up and accept that the tragedy of the commons is unavoidable? This past year has probably been the tipping point for me. In my 20's I still felt some kind of optimism. I remember reading about the crisis that coral reefs would face should the warming continue. I thought to myself "there is no way humanity would let something like the Great Barrier Reef turn into a brittle bleached skeleton". At the time I was involved with forest ecology and was learning some scary stuff, this eventually transformed into an academic and professional career in urban planning in the hopes that I could at least address what I thought was the primary contributor to the crisis -- our patterns of consumption across the landscape. Then this year came along and wouldn't you know it, we are going to let the Great Barrier Reef turn into a brittle bleached skeleton. I have the means to take a trip to Australia. I am seriously considering it given the situation. I know it's selfish, but at this point, honestly, whether I do it or not, it's going to be gone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:For those of you who are actually in the trenches, at what point did/do you just throw your hands up and accept that the tragedy of the commons is unavoidable? Not actually in the trenches, but I think humanity will muddle through this just fine and continue to be its old, destructive self. How much of humanity, and how many of the other species are coming along with us is another story entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Overflight posted:Again, how am I supposed to live my life with this knowledge? I refuse to raise a family, any and all career goals seem useless to me since society as we know it might not even survive the next 20 years, let alone 100, and most people and family treat me like an annoyance at best. Is the mere act of existing and not being dead supposed to give me some intrinsic joy? Because I don't get it and getting medicated for it doesn't seem like a good prospect because I am afraid of becoming too optimistic and then making choices like raising a family that then will be stuck in this hell and die painfully cursing my name. Who the gently caress wants to marry you anyway? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Then this year came along and wouldn't you know it, we are going to let the Great Barrier Reef turn into a brittle bleached skeleton. By the time I heard about this, I was already so cynical that it barely registered. I feel like it should have affected me worse, having grown up in the early-to-mid 90s with a lot of media exposure about friggin' cool and incredible the Great Barrier Reef was, but the most I could muster was "eh, makes sense"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Show your work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom%E2%80%93Brookes_postulate
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
eightpole posted:Get help you whiny goon kolby posted:Who the gently caress wants to marry you anyway? Is there a reason you both felt the need to quote a month-old post just to attack someone who, at the end of the very conversation you're quoting the beginning of, said he would rethink his views? If you'd like to positively contribute to this thread or say anything at all related to climate change, feel free to post here. Otherwise, gently caress off. computer parts posted:Show your work. Just a cursory search finds abstracts like this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508007428 posted:While the evidence in favour of ‘Jevons Paradox’ is far from conclusive, it does suggest that economy-wide rebound effects are larger than is conventionally assumed and that energy plays a more important role in driving productivity improvements and economic growth than is conventionally assumed Edit: Found a book on the subject that is partially online. Page 147 posted:As shown previously, examples of the Jevons Paradox are numerous. However, the increase in demand for a resource is not strictly confined to products that use that resource more effieciently; it can also involve other end-uses because they compete for the same overall budget. Therefore, not only does a direct micro rebound effect exist, but there is also an indirect macro rebound... Thus the rebound effects are economy-wide, not specific to just one sector, product, or end-use... Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:For those of you who are actually in the trenches, at what point did/do you just throw your hands up and accept that the tragedy of the commons is unavoidable? When I realized that even if directives to overhaul transportation infrastructure came down from on high in a beam of light, middle management and the average engineer will drag their feet til the end of time to keep their lives easy and avoid change. Even with the full force of company leadership backing CC/green efficiency initiatives, the average reaction is lockstep against the CAFE standards, against emissions standards, against "the green agenda", etc. And to a one, they all know electric cars are a red herring and "diesel will never die." I used to dream of climbing the ladder and yanking the auto industry in a more universal mass transit direction, now I just want a farm. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
At an individual level, it really feels like all I can do is flail around impotently. But I am still trying hard to change things in my field, even if it's just rearranging deck chairs. Hypothetical: if you were a multi-billionaire on the level of Mark Zuckerberg with connections everywhere, what would you guys do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Getting around Tokyo by Metro is infinitely easier than doing so by car, plus you're not paying > $10/hour for parking. And, it's hard to find a place in central Tokyo that isn't less than a 10 minute walk to the nearest station. Central Tokyo is extremely expensive to live in, usually ranked 1st or 2nd in the world. Everyone I know lives on the outside and has to change lines a few times to get to work (you are insanely lucky if you can ride a direct line) and a lot of the stations that are 'co located' are in reality more than 600m apart. Plus this only really works out for people who can walk easily. Believe me I really like the trains, nothing beats cracking a beer on the train after a meeting, but there's a lot of disadvantages to the system and pretending they don't exist isn't going to get people to agree with huge public works project that are necessary for them. Nevvy Z posted:I somehow think that it would just be worse if they all had cars. Yes, but most people would still love to have one. They don't go carless because of traffic or some sacrifice to the greater good, it's just that it's too expensive. That's the point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:At an individual level, it really feels like all I can do is flail around impotently. But I am still trying hard to change things in my field, even if it's just rearranging deck chairs. Well pretty easy question, use that money to make more money in true fygm fashion
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Well pretty easy question, use that money to make more money in true fygm fashion Probably buying water rights or funding new GMO ag crops to come to market in line with regional crop collapses. Basically (have your lawyer) waltz into town and say "want to live? Buy my water/gmo wheat" Also there's still time to ground floor a geoengineering or carbon negative technology. Pick the right one and you're the next Goodyear or Carnegie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:For those of you who are actually in the trenches, at what point did/do you just throw your hands up and accept that the tragedy of the commons is unavoidable? For me it was about 8 years ago. And it was strongly formed by this document, http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf Not the document so much but how it was ignored. We have all the sciences of the world coming together, collectively stating the dire need for action and nothing. It was that realization that effectively nothing would be done. The massive drop in arctic sea ice extent in 2007 had a profound effect on me. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8074 These events happened around the same time for me. Having an engineering undergraduate degree, I don't believe the hype about renewables (PV and Wind) at all, in my mind they are expensive and if they were ever judged in a holistic manner, their true costs might then become apparent. But, as an annual average they contribute so little to a countries electricity that the issues with them aren't become apparent, there are a few exceptions with some work arounds. So, no political will to effect change, its really expensive and the public are still believing that rewnewables and new technologies are somehow going to fairy tale us out of this issue. We are so hosed. In the meantime, got my PhD in atmospheric science, specializing in cloud micro physical processes and currently working on a paper on precipitation projections for climate change scenarios (I am still very junior but working at it). If there is one thing I am absolutely sure of, people are going to want to know what's going to happen to their water supply. *sad*
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Things are looking up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Xc3LtZRWo
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
I can't think of an argument with a worse foundation, goddamn. "Well we raised fuel efficiency rates but absolute values of crude consumption rose somehow!" *Ignores literally billions of people industrializing for the first time*
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
The guy putting his boot into that has balls of steel. Imagine being on top of a giant methane bubble when the ground pops like a soap bubble. (I have no idea if methane bubbles work that way).
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Huh. We're dead. I'm actually kinda okay with that. It's an interesting feeling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Huh. We're dead. Positive feedback cycles rule (for anyone watching from a safe distance).
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
In this case, though, the clear solution is to nuke Russia before Russia cooks us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
you goddamned doom and gloom environmentalists can't you see the potential for the world's biggest bounce house staring you in the face?? there's profit to be made here
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:you goddamned doom and gloom environmentalists Put a greenhouse over Siberia, pipe the exhaust into the biggest baddest generator ever built. Enough power to power everyone's AC while increasing the need to power everyone's AC some more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:33
|
|