|
The Earth naturally does this, actually. The problem with burying is that you better hope it doesn't get released later and be part of a positive feedback cycle.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is it possible to just built some sort of massive carbon sinks, so we can literally just capture and bury the poo poo in huge amounts in a short period of time? Sure, how much are you willing to spend per ton sequestered?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is it possible to just built some sort of massive carbon sinks, so we can literally just capture and bury the poo poo in huge amounts in a short period of time? Nature already did this, although over much longer time periods. We call it coal, oil and natural gas. But to answer your question more directly, it will always be cheaper to not emit the carbon than trying to capture it after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
We just need to add a whole loving bunch of oxygen and nitrogen to the atmosphere to lower the ratio, boom CO2 levels back under 400ppm
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Venus is cool and good. This is simply not true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Science actually just published a really good discussion of Carbon sequestration technologies that are most often present in climate models. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.fullquote:is not well understood by policy-makers, or indeed many academics, that IAMs assume such a massive deployment of negative-emission technologies. Yet when it comes to the more stringent Paris obligations, studies suggest that it is impossible to reach 1.5°C with a 50% chance without significant negative emissions (3). Even for 2°C, very few scenarios have explored mitigation without negative emissions (2). Negative emissions are also prevalent in scenarios for higher stabilization targets (7). Given such a pervasive and pivotal role of negative emissions in mitigation scenarios, their almost complete absence from climate policy discussions is disturbing and needs to be addressed urgently. Technically doesn't officially come out until tomorrow but you can (and should) read it now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Science actually just published a really good discussion of Carbon sequestration technologies that are most often present in climate models. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.full Pretty depressing. Basically the technology for removing carbon from the atmosphere in any reasonable way is so far off that you may as well treat it is an impossibility at this point in mitigation plans. Oh and a lot of mitigation plans don't do this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Pretty depressing. At this point the question isn't "how do we fix this?" it's "how do we survive this?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Pretty depressing. It's okay, it'll only cost a couple billion to fix all this. And other magical thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
How do I ensure that I never have to see the words "the Great Barrier Reef is dead" again, short of blinding myself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Use the money from carbon taxes to bribe public officials into passing more stringent laws, carbon taxes and ordinances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:How do I ensure that I never have to see the words "the Great Barrier Reef is dead" again, short of blinding myself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
I'd literally die to try to sabotage any attempt at chemtrailing us into an acid rain hellscape just so China doesn't have to give up its coal plants. edit: Hahah I loving love the people who whine about clickbait around the Great Barrier Reef. "GOD GUYS, it's not dead it's just MOSTLY DEAD and is on a trajectory to complete destruciton within our lives. Stupid clickbait sheep." call to action fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
call to action posted:I'd literally die to try to sabotage any attempt at chemtrailing us into an acid rain hellscape just so China doesn't have to give up its coal plants. Yeah, it's the dastardly Chinese that are keeping Big Coal afloat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, it's the dastardly Chinese that are keeping Big Coal afloat. I mean, yes? quote:China's coal consumption grew by four percent to 2.75 billion tonnes in 2013 accounting for over half of the world's total coal consumption in the year. China is also by far the biggest coal producer accounting for about 47.4% of the world's coal output in 2013. China alone consumes and produces half the worlds coal all by itself. (Also US coal companies are bankrupting like a Trump casino too.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
call to action posted:edit: Hahah I loving love the people who whine about clickbait around the Great Barrier Reef. "GOD GUYS, it's not dead it's just MOSTLY DEAD and is on a trajectory to complete destruciton within our lives. Stupid clickbait sheep." Yeah, except that the issue in this case isn't that the Great Barrier Reef is suddenly clickbait, it's that the gossip mag that kicked off this whole thing got a huge amount of information completely wrong. The only one ranting about the gullibility of the general populace here is you. Also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-take-on-great-barrier-reef-obituary_us_57fff8f1e4b0162c043b068f posted:Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said in an email to HuffPost that he was “not impressed by the [article’s] message that we should give up on the [Great Barrier Reef], or that it is already dead.” As has been said many times over in this thread, it's important to be specific and precise when we talk about the effects of climate change because false information just makes climate denier's jobs easier and because (as we've seen ITT time and time again) people start to do really dumb, stupid poo poo when they resign themselves to nothing but pessimistic outcomes rooted in a belief that we're so far down the hole that no action can save us. I'm glad that the GBR is getting people's attention, better late than never, but tell me how this is any different from the furor over polar bears, the Amazon, the Gulf of Mexico dead zone, the icecaps, etc. This could be another global event to mobilize around (and hopefully the planners for the 2017 People's Climate March are paying attention), but the value of simply "getting people to take notice" or "starting a conversation" is nearly nonexistent at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean, yes? hey, we all helped
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Looks like the binding HFC treaty was finally negotiated:quote:At a UN conference in Rwanda, 197 nations agreed to drastically reduce their use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), an obscure but extremely powerful greenhouse gas used in air conditioners, refrigerators, and foams. By cutting these pollutants, the world could avoid between 0.3°C and 0.44°C of warming by the end of the century, according to the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development:
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Looks like the binding HFC treaty was finally negotiated: LOL funny how even this article states that post-treaty, the world is still on track for 4C warming but pats on everyone's backs!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:LOL funny how even this article states that post-treaty, the world is still on track for 4C warming but pats on everyone's backs! "True, even with this deal, the world is still on pace to blow way past the threshold of 2°C of warming that policymakers have considered dangerous. Countries still have a lot more work to do under the broader Paris climate accord. But this HFC breakthrough makes those efforts slightly easier. All those fractions eventually add up." Which is pretty much the argument I usually make in this thread and the HFC treaty is just another sign that the Paris framework can work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Wait so you're heralding a treaty which actually doesn't do anything and still leads to a 4C+ scenario?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Wait so you're heralding a treaty which actually doesn't do anything and still leads to a 4C+ scenario? Keep showing off how little you understand climate. Just because it isn't a magic bullet doesn't mean it is doing nothing. Stopping emissions that would cause +.5C by 2100 is a big deal even if it doesn't solve climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Nah, we all know that you're a climate change minimizer but it's funny how you're lying about +.5C when the linked paper states that HFC mitigation, specifically, would have an impact of ~0.1C.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Lol at you calling rounding .44 to .5 "lying" but whatever let's you justify your lifestyle
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Says the guy who thinks the solution to global warming is taking away AC from the global south. More like quote:In December, the Tyndall Centre hosted a conference on "radical emissions reductions" that offered some eye-popping suggestions: Perhaps every adult in wealthy countries could get a personal "carbon budget" tracked through an electronic credit card. Once they hit their limit, no more vacations or road trips. Other attendees suggested shaming campaigns against celebrities with outsized homes and yachts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Says the guy who thinks the solution to global warming is taking away AC from the global south. That's a great idea and if it happened I would laud it. Meanwhile in reality, the Global South (along with the entire world) just signed onto a binding to replace the use of high global warming potential chemicals with lower ones that includes funding to help the global south make the switch to better refrigerants, isn't that laudable too? Edit: and even better the Developed world has to switch over first and pay the developing world! Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
How are treaties like this binding? Look at the failure of the EU ETS or the repeal of the Australian equivalent to show how meaningless these agreements are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:How are treaties like this binding? Look at the failure of the EU ETS or the repeal of the Australian equivalent to show how meaningless these agreements are. The Montreal Protocol has been in effect for quite a while, if you want to learn how it works specifically, google it yourself. If you're trying to argue it is impossible to make a binding treaty, again Montreal is one example but there are many (e.g trade arbitration)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Nah, look at the Kyoto Protocol to see how comprehensive of a failure any attempt at treaty-based climate change mitigtation is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Science actually just published a really good discussion of Carbon sequestration technologies that are most often present in climate models. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/182.full There was also a pretty good article in WaPo about this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/13/were-placing-far-too-much-hope-in-pulling-carbon-dioxide-out-of-the-air-scientists-warn/?utm_term=.801bd36fd202 posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:More like
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Nah, look at the Kyoto Protocol to see how comprehensive of a failure any attempt at treaty-based climate change mitigtation is. *is Canada* Oh poo poo is that some oil sands over there, gently caress these key-yoto poo poo we're out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
I'm not sure why so many people seem to think any kind of collective action on climate change is simply an impossible pipe dream. It's like they heard the parable of the tragedy of the commons one time and decided the problem was literally insurmountable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not sure why so many people seem to think any kind of collective action on climate change is simply an impossible pipe dream. It's like they heard the parable of the tragedy of the commons one time and decided the problem was literally insurmountable. Humanity's barreling toward a wall in a 1970 Ford Pontiac, screaming "But there's nothing I can do! Turning left or right is just too hard!".
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not sure why so many people seem to think any kind of collective action on climate change is simply an impossible pipe dream. It's like they heard the parable of the tragedy of the commons one time and decided the problem was literally insurmountable. No, I'm just looking at where we are in time and our collective efforts this far. It's undeniable that there are steps in the right direction but it is past the time when 'beginnings' or 'first steps' are acceptable progress. Which is not to say that these efforts are meaningless, but rather that it's insulting to think that we are actually on a path to mitigate the problem, because barring some quasi-magical CO2-sucking widget, we are not going to make it. A carbon tax 20 years ago? That's meaningful. A carbon tax in 5-10 years? Much less so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
Nope, still meaningful. Yeah it's a major bummer we probably aren't going to meet the 2C goal, but 4C and 6C warming scenarios are so much worse it almost boggles the mind. And not just for us humans. The business as usual path completely devastates the vast majority of sea and terrestrial animal life. EVERYTHING we can do is absolutely critical. inebibtn
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Considering that the Paris Agreement is still pretending that a 1.5C target is achievable, it's pretty clear it's useless. LMAO, it was +1.3C for the 1st half of this year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
WE know that ain't happening, but isn't that preferable to a treaty that aims for a 5C scenario because it's easy? Y'all have weird definitions of "meaningful" and "useful".
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Hey, aren't you the guy saying that pension funds are going to save us with market based solutions since they're reducing their investments in O&G? We're laughing at you and trabisniskof for being climate change minimisers
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
rofl yeah totally I only go to climate marches when the Goldman guys are busy, they got this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 13:02
|
|