|
I'm trying to think of what plants / rootbeds exist that would trap methane gas in that fashion. That's a bizarro phenomenon especially in a tundra / taiga type ecosystem. Years of dead grass that fails to decompose given the temperature/growing season?
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Perhaps similar to how ice can trap CO2 bubbles given the right conditions? Anyway, I want to remind folks of something kind of important: Photosynthesis doesn't make oxygen out of carbon dioxide. Instead, the emitted oxygen (and plants don't always emit it) comes from the water that is also used during photosynthesis. The oxygen molecules of carbon dioxide make up the sugars that plants produce. That is why you see this: Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jul 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
What horrible doom does this graph mean? I don't know anything about O2 concentration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Positive feedback cycles rule (for anyone watching from a safe distance). That's the thing. It's thawing. We aren't almost done with a massive geoengineering project right now. We haven't dedicated a generation of humanity to focus on moving to clean, long-term energy generation at any cost. We missed it. We are going to die on Earth. I realize, however, that in the last two years that I've "settled down" and, well, so our species dies. It's okay. I did read Marcus Aurelius last night, so maybe it's just a stoic zen. Or the calm before a mental meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Guess I don't have to "improve myself" after all! OK, seriously. Maybe I'm just having a relatively good day but honestly I think I'll just enjoy my life until everything goes to hell. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Anyway, I want to remind folks of something kind of important: That's pretty pedantic (N.B. I am never pedantic) and NOT important. For every CO2 that enters the reaction, one O2 is emitted - it makes no difference (outside of determining isotope ratios) whether the oxygen atoms come from the H2O or the CO2. Your graphs, as your link states, show a downward trend due to fossil carbon being combined with atmospheric oxygen faster than photosynthesis can convert the CO2 back to O2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Overflight posted:Guess I don't have to "improve myself" after all! poo poo's boring without something hard to work on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:What horrible doom does this graph mean? I don't know anything about O2 concentration. Placid Marmot posted:That's pretty pedantic (N.B. I am never pedantic) and NOT important. Uhh... no? This is why it's important - because you just repeated the wrong thing: Photosynthesis does not change CO2 into O2. This is what produces oxygen during photosynthesis: 2H2O → 4 electrons + 4 H protons + O2 CO2 + 4 electrons + 4 H protons → CH2O + H2O There are other processes (Calvin cycle) that eventually creates phosphate or sugars. The important takeaway is that more/faster-growing plants are not going to pump out more oxygen as a result of an increase in CO2. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
From a policy perspective is there any difference between someone denying Climate Change and someone who is saying all is lost? They both are effectively saying our resources should be spent elsewhere. One out of ignorance the other out of cynicism, but to me the conclusion of inaction seems to be the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:From a policy perspective is there any difference between someone denying Climate Change and someone who is saying all is lost? They both are effectively saying our resources should be spent elsewhere. Well, one of them is rooted in an ignorant or purposefully callous value system that created the lovely situation we have today and the other indicates the kind of intelligent understanding of facts and science that may have avoided the aforementioned lovely situation, so it's probably a good policy to support people who comprehend science and not support people who are idiots. But, then, the appearance of expediency resulting from the consequentialist position you take is really popular, because it makes it look like you don't want to get bogged down with philosophical arguments because you're focused on getting things done. The drawback is that it makes you an idiot because that attitude is what got us hosed in the first place, and you can pick any of a number of funny colloquial expressions about how doing the same stupid thing that lead to a problem is probably not the right way to get out of the problem but really who cares when we all know whatever answer anyone gives to these kinds of questions is a waste of time since some shitheel with a toupee is going to come along and ignore it and gently caress things up even worse anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Uhh... no? This is why it's important - because you just repeated the wrong thing: I understand that, chemically, the O2 comes from H2O, as I acknowledged in my response (though my last line was self-contradictory), but I had not appreciated that this mechanism may be a significant cause of ocean deoxygenation, which I believed to be caused by eutrophication-like phenomena.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:That's pretty pedantic (N.B. I am never pedantic) and NOT important. Bachman? Michelle? Is that you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
I'll acknowledge that we are all going to die and still work the problem because designing and building things is fun, and we'd be doing far future generations of humans / intelligent life a favor by mitigating whatever we can as soon as we can. It's a good cause.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Dissolved O2 is gonna be a different story and yes eutrophication plays a major role in localized deoxygenation of the water. As far as effects of eutrophication on atmospheric O2 I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:What horrible doom does this graph mean? I don't know anything about O2 concentration. It means capitalists are gonna get filthy rich selling bottled oxygen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiabeNR_q0U
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
To be clear, I don't think the human species is doomed. I think that, unfortunately, climate change is going to end up benefiting low-density, resource-independent regions, which basically means North America. Barring all-out nuclear war as a result of regional instability, I assume we'll carry on. I think the brunt of the suffering will, as usual, be felt by the people who have suffered for the last two hundred years: South Asia, Africa, the Middle East. South Asia, especially. I'm pretty sure the massive blackouts a few years back were because of a late monsoon coupled with groundwater accessibility being to the point where it overtaxes the electrical grid to pump the necessary water. As things get worse, that'll get much worse, and so on and so forth. In the US, we'll see some disasters in coastal regions, and generally lovely events that will make us hearken back to the happy days of yore when the jokes about Florida related to alligator mishaps and Floridians, rather than the largest migration of human beings in the history of the world. I really don't expect climate doomsday stuff like cat 6 hurricanes or The Day After Tomorrow, so there's a place for policy. But the policy will be one of taking advantage of fortuitous geographic factors and squeezing profits out of massive human suffering. Par for the course, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I understand that, chemically, the O2 comes from H2O, as I acknowledged in my response (though my last line was self-contradictory), but I had not appreciated that this mechanism may be a significant cause of ocean deoxygenation, which I believed to be caused by eutrophication-like phenomena. Here are some fun things to think about when one looks at how O2 is released and how CO2 is captured as outlined above: -Plants get more water-efficient as -Phosphorus depletion on land -Phosphorus accumulation in water (as you hint at here) Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'll acknowledge that we are all going to die and still work the problem because designing and building things is fun, and we'd be doing far future generations of humans / intelligent life a favor by mitigating whatever we can as soon as we can. It's a good cause. Personally I don't like the doom and gloom. Humans are highly likely to screw off into space. We may not travel the stars any time soon but space habitats should be doable. There is also serious talk about Mars. A bunch of stodgy old fucks that deny change will stick around and keep drilling but you know what? Screw 'em. If the rest of us can have space they can keep this old rock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Personally I don't like the doom and gloom. Humans are highly likely to screw off into space. We may not travel the stars any time soon but space habitats should be doable. There is also serious talk about Mars. 60 years after the wright brothers, we had the A-12 Blackbird. We're coming up on 49 years since Apollo 11 and we're...desperately reverse engineering the Saturn V engines because our lifting capacity is trash. The only reliable manned transport is hitching rides on Soyuz rockets out of a decrepit and half-abandoned facility in Kazakhstan. We have one crazy millionaire doing research on reusable rocketry. The collective Nah, we're not getting a colony off this rock before climate change both kneecaps the deeply intricate industrial machine required to facilitate that kind of infrastructure as well as redirects any potential funding or R&D energy towards vastly more immediate concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
I never get the assertion that climate change will ruin industry and trade. If anything it will increase our dependency on them. But we won't stop mining as the costs of energy rise. Edit: but yeah I think "just go to space let them ruin the earth" is dumb. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Personally I don't like the doom and gloom. Humans are highly likely to screw off into space. We may not travel the stars any time soon but space habitats should be doable. There is also serious talk about Mars. Ha ha, "the rest of us". Are you incredibly wealthy? Do you have super special skills? Then why would you think you're not stuck here for the rest of your sad life?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Personally I don't like the doom and gloom. Humans are highly likely to screw off into space. We may not travel the stars any time soon but space habitats should be doable. There is also serious talk about Mars. Mars is not habitable nor is space. No matter how bad Earth gets, barring Venus, it will be better than Mars and better than space.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Mars is not habitable nor is space. No matter how bad Earth gets, barring Venus, it will be better than Mars and better than space. Venus is actually quite habitable and probably vastly easier to colonize than Mars, at our current level of technology. Almost identical gravity, active magnetic field, able to walk around outside your hab without a spacesuit on, easy to refine elements of life such as water from plentiful atmosphere. That all "serious" space colonization efforts are still fixated on Mars is the top indicator that we're getting jack poo poo for space travel in our lifetimes. Mars is easier to get to with our lovely 1950's-esque rocketry, and that's where the easy stops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Rime posted:Venus is actually quite habitable and probably vastly easier to colonize than Mars, at our current level of technology. Almost identical gravity, active magnetic field, able to walk around outside your hab without a spacesuit on, easy to refine elements of life such as water from plentiful atmosphere. Just checking if this is a joke or not. Like, it has a weak magnetic field, air pressure 90 times that of the Earth, and air temperature of 450C+. I just can't spot the sarcasm - help me out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
"Go to space" makes close to zero sense as a species-wide solution. It's definitely possible to put people on Mars or in bigger stations than the ISS, but millions (let alone billions) of people living off planet is not realistic. At least not in the next few hundred years or so. First, the logistics make no sense. Think about how many people you'd have to move off planet every year to just keep Earth's population constant. Currently the figure is something like 75 million. Per year. Rockets will never get you there. Maybe if we built 100 space elevators, and each sent three cars that are the equivalent of a fully packed, single-class 747 (660 people), up every cable, every day, for a whole year, you could almost do it (you'd still be short a few million, but let's keep it simple). Congrats. Population is now steady. You have made (birth rate) - (death rate + people leaving Earth) = 0. To actually significantly draw down Earth population over a meaningfully short timeframe you need to pump this exodus up by a factor of 2 or more. I think we'll be lucky if there's one space elevator by 2100. And I don't think it'll be moving ~2,000 people per day permanently off planet. Even if it was, you'd need another 199 just like it to start to make a noticeable dent. It's just not going to happen. But let's say it does. We discover carbon nanotubes 3.0 and build 1,000 space elevators! Now we can physically move a big fraction of humans off the surface of Earth. Cool. But where will they go? It's not like a train station, where the transportation infrastructure connects one livable area to another. We're dropping people off by the (hundreds of?) millions each year in to wilderness that's worse than the summit of Mt. Everest. Think about the numbers of people and the infrastructure they need. Tens of millions of apartments, at the very least. Every year. That doesn't include space for industry or work or agriculture or recreation. You'd have to build (roughly) a Bangladesh worth of everything humans need to live, oh and make sure it's all air tight and doesn't need support from Earth, because then what's the point? Every year. And that's the sad case where most live in crushing poverty and are packed dense. And even if Von-Neumann bots can hollow out asteroids fast enough to provide all this space and make it survivable, where will the food come from? Shipping it up from Earth defeats the purpose. If we're growing the food in space then we've figured out how to make fertile soil from scratch, or nearly so. (Or you're taking it from Earth, which again defeats the purpose). Reliable fertile soil creation methods alone would probably solve just about everything on Earth, right? To save Earth by going to space you need dozens of major revolutions/innovations in dozens of fields. A smaller subset of those revolutions/innovations (fusion power, or self replicating autonomous construction bots, or artificial soil creation, or big/cheap/efficient solar panels) would solve the problems on Earth: Build the arcologies in Nevada instead of on the Moon, it's just easier. Let cheap fusion power desalinate ocean water instead of building fusion rockets to go fetch comets, it's easier. Build just the bigass solar panels by themselves and beam the power back down. Build the self contained farms with genetically engineered crops and aeroponics and artificial light next to your already-existing NYC. Instead of building it in space, and then having to also build space-NYC, and also the infrastructure needed to populate it, and then also moving all those people. What set of circumstances would make us do all the space stuff but not the vastly easier/cheaper/doesn't require mass migration/isn't missing one final tech revolution here-on-Earth stuff? That said, I'm a huge proponent of spaceflight, manned and unmanned. I think we should absolutely send people back to the Moon and put a science station on Mars and launch 100 robotic probes a year and all that other sci-fi stuff. We'd learn a lot and it's a beautiful project. But there's just no way it can save us, in the sense of large fractions of the population moving out there to lessen the burden here. Someday I'm optimistic that people will live all over the solar system. But Earth will have the vast majority of the total population for a very long time, even if there are thriving colonies on Mars etc. Our work is here. Certainly this generation, and probably the next five or ten generations too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Just checking if this is a joke or not. Maybe Rime left the aerostat part of the typical colonization plan unsaid? Just spitballing here, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Just checking if this is a joke or not. He may be saying we are already on Venus...the Venus before unrestrained climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Maybe Rime left the aerostat part of the typical colonization plan unsaid? Just spitballing here, though. I assumed colonizing the surface impossible enough at face value that nobody would think I meant it, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Rime posted:60 years after the wright brothers, we had the A-12 Blackbird. We're coming up on 49 years since Apollo 11 and we're...desperately reverse engineering the Saturn V engines because our lifting capacity is trash. The only reliable manned transport is hitching rides on Soyuz rockets out of a decrepit and half-abandoned facility in Kazakhstan. We have one crazy millionaire doing research on reusable rocketry. Yeah because space was and currently is literally a dickwaving contest. There's a lot of historical need for air flight, so it was developed very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:Build just the bigass solar panels by themselves and beam the power back down. Build the self contained farms with genetically engineered crops and aeroponics and artificial light next to your already-existing NYC. Instead of building it in space, and then having to also build space-NYC, and also the infrastructure needed to populate it, and then also moving all those people. Can't we already do these two? -
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
professor_curly posted:Can't we already do these two? - We can do a lot of amazing things we won't ever do because Republicans and their European and Eurasian counterparts won't allow tax increases or more regulation since they're hateful little short sighted bigot fuckos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Whoops:quote:New research led by NASA scientists reveals that almost one-fifth of the global warming that has occurred in the past 150 years has been missed by historical records due to quirks in how global temperatures were recorded. The study explains why projections of future climate based solely on historical records estimate lower rates of warming than predictions from climate models. A lack of Arctic measurements and the attempts to get them seems to be to blame for this: quote:The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of Earth, but there are fewer historic temperature readings from there than from lower latitudes because it is so inaccessible. A data set with fewer Arctic temperature measurements naturally shows less warming than a climate model that fully represents the Arctic. They didn't think these quirks would add up to a big difference, but: quote:These quirks hide around 19 percent of global air-temperature warming since the 1860s. That’s enough that calculations generated from historical records alone were cooler than about 90 percent of the results from the climate models that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses for its authoritative assessment reports. In the apples-to-apples comparison, the historical temperature calculation was close to the middle of the range of calculations from the IPCC’s suite of models. quote:Any research that compares modeled and observed long-term temperature records could suffer from the same problems, Richardson said. “Researchers should be clear about how they use temperature records, to make sure that comparisons are fair. It had seemed like real-world data hinted that future global warming would be a bit less than models said. This mostly disappears in a fair comparison.” 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
We do have the Grace satellites which help to map changes in arctic ice, its something. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/overview/index.html#.V5Oa9_l95pg
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:...good news? This was your first mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
What I really find pretty funny about the whole situation is how it's a never ending series of "It's much worse than we thought" reveals through ongoing research; it's like a scooby doo espisode where the villain keeps getting unmasked over and over, each mask worse than the last
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
I'm glad you find it funny, because I sure don't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Overflight posted:I'm glad you find it funny, because I sure don't. Gallows humor
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Overflight posted:I'm glad you find it funny, because I sure don't. Talking about it all serious doesn't fix it faster than joking about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 20:53
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Banana Man posted:What I really find pretty funny about the whole situation is how it's a never ending series of "It's much worse than we thought" reveals through ongoing research; it's like a scooby doo espisode where the villain keeps getting unmasked over and over, each mask worse than the last Yet, keep getting accused of alarmism. :/
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Yet, keep getting accused of alarmism. :/ ^
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 01:13
|
|