|
cowofwar posted:Yeah but all the regulations around solar came after solar pv tech was reasonably matured. Euro regulations acted as a catalyst to provide demand, and China used monetary policy to greatly expand production in response. We have really easy access to carbon already, there's really no economical reason for it to be sucked out of the air for a jillion dollars an ounce when it's the fourth most abundant element in the universe, the 15th most abundant in the Earths Crust, and you can get it just by burning some wood or dehydrating sugar or something else easy to do.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
ChairMaster posted:We have really easy access to carbon already, there's really no economical reason for it to be sucked out of the air for a jillion dollars an ounce when it's the fourth most abundant element in the universe, the 15th most abundant in the Earths Crust, and you can get it just by burning some wood or dehydrating sugar or something else easy to do. I'd say "too much carbon in the atmosphere will kill literally all of us" is a good enough economic reason. This quarter's profits, however, disagree with me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'd say "too much carbon in the atmosphere will kill literally all of us" is a good enough economic reason. The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is, alas, nearsighted. e: In other news, there is a loving cyclone headed to the Arctic, where it's projected to hover around the North Pole a bit. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Yeah but all the regulations around solar came after solar pv tech was reasonably matured. Euro regulations acted as a catalyst to provide demand, and China used monetary policy to greatly expand production in response. I don't think anyone would disagree with this if magically detached from Time. We are, however, in something of a squeeze. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread advocate for regulation on carbon capture right now with a specific tech. I agree with you, and you'd find as much in my last two posts, that more time is needed for capture tech to reach commercial scale maturity. More focus is on efficiency and prevention. We are, as you suggest, largely mature on PV; we are appropriately seeing incentive to move to PV and other mature green tech. Some (loaded) questions I want to ask you: 1) After a few years on this mature implementation track, is there a time for a new phase? Phase 1 research to maturity, phase 2 rollout, phase 3...actively disincentivize the old way? If we accept that 600ppm+ (or pick a number) CO2 is a public health nuisance, threat to peace, and climate threat, do we accelerate not only phase 2 with incentives but also phase 3 with carbon caps and taxes? 2) When you're talking about scarce resources, you aren't doing so to rhetorially support the notion that we need to burn fuel now so future carbon capture doesn't make atmospheric co2 scarce....?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is, alas, nearsighted. well hands have no eyes so this checks out
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is, alas, nearsighted. Say what? Is that common? I honestly don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
No, it is very unusual and could be disastrous if it plays out as currently forecast. What ice that does exist by and large is under a meter thick, which makes it vulnerable to fracturing when there's such high winds and waves. Furthermore, this wave action will stir up warmer waters from deeper in the ocean, increasing melt. Then if it snows, that will insulate whatever ice remains, further retarding ice formation. Additionally, there is might be a similar storm in the Antarctic at around the same time which could pretty much guarantee continued record lows there as well. I am honestly hoping that the worst-case scenario plays out now just on the slim chance it might shock people into acceptance of what is happening before Trump destroys our climate programs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Apparently FCA (Fiat-Chrysler America) has also been cheating with their small diesels emissions
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
edit: ^^^^ Darn it. Slightly off topic, but it looks like Chrysler has been cheating emission tests a la Volkswagen: The New York Times posted:The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday accused Fiat Chrysler of using secret software that allowed illegal excess emissions from at least 104,000 diesel vehicles. It's interesting to contrast this with recent complaining from the automotive industry lobby about not being able to run out the clock and avoid more stringent fuel economy standards: quote:The EPA today told an automaker lobbyist group that it will not extend the deadline for a review of strict fuel economy standards through the 2025 vehicle model year, indicating the agency will push ahead with a plan to make the rules final before the Obama administration leaves office Jan. 20. The automotive industry intensely lobbies against pollution and fuel economy standards and explicitly cheats on these standards when possible. The only thing standing in their way is the EPA, so it's interesting to see their current strategy is to wait for the Trump administration to come in and gut it. Isn't everyone glad Obama and the Democrats bailed this industry out in 2008? Also for those saying that Hillary/Obama would be the same as Trump wrt to climate change, it's worth pointing out that the Democrats would at least keep the lights on at the EPA and other regulatory bodies. As a reminder transportation accounts for ~26% of US carbon emissions, with passenger vehicles accounting for roughly half of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
The internet doesn't seem to think Arctic cyclones in themselves are unusual, could you explain what makes this special? Size/location within the Arctic? Or is "the usual" already all hosed-up compared to what it was?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
I think it's a combination of its strength, its timing, and the current state of the ice. If we had ice like we had a couple of decades ago that was multiple meters thick it would survive unscathed, but currently the ice extent and volume are the lowest on record and even right now it's not really freezing up, despite this being when it really should be. To have what ice exists be torn to shreds means we will emerge from the freezing season in an unprecedentedly bad situation. But to be perfectly frank I'm not an expert, as much as I wish I were, so any experts around here please feel free to correct me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I think it's a combination of its strength, its timing, and the current state of the ice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay. It being a not-unusual storm would be worse really, since that'd mean you couldn't even hope for business as usual in terms of storms to give the Arctic some respite. The current ice minimum in 2012 was driven by a cyclone entering the artic at a bad time. Basically it's figured that the first ice free minimum will follow some kind of storm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay. It being a not-unusual storm would be worse really, since that'd mean you couldn't even hope for business as usual in terms of storms to give the Arctic some respite. I'm not sure how comforting that really is. This storm is looking like it has the potential to absolutely devastate the pack that exists right now and help to drive more ice out of the arctic. Obviously it'd be a lot worse if we were having these storms constantly, but badly timed freak events like this ratchet things down into a new normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not sure how comforting that really is. This storm is looking like it has the potential to absolutely devastate the pack that exists right now and help to drive more ice out of the arctic. Obviously it'd be a lot worse if we were having these storms constantly, but badly timed freak events like this ratchet things down into a new normal. Ice-free summer by 2020 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not sure how comforting that really is. This storm is looking like it has the potential to absolutely devastate the pack that exists right now and help to drive more ice out of the arctic. Obviously it'd be a lot worse if we were having these storms constantly, but badly timed freak events like this ratchet things down into a new normal. Are you talking about the spot just north of Severny or the ones off Svalbard? : https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=56.30,73.43,992
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
If I'm close to 30 now, what can I realistically expect by my 80's in terms of ecological/economic fallout?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Are you talking about the spot just north of Severny or the ones off Svalbard? : https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=56.30,73.43,992 The storm isn't forecast for a few days yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
RobotDogPolice posted:If I'm close to 30 now, what can I realistically expect by my 80's in terms of ecological/economic fallout? Totally depends on your wealth, location, preparedness and general world direction. This is still 50 years we are talking about, you and the world can both do an enormous amount of things to make that future as pleasant/manageable as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
As to how bad it is for the ice, here's what one more savvy than I says:quote:You know, I'm finding it hard to think of ways the conditions could be worse for strengthening and expanding the pack; I'm down to freak hurricanes and asteroid strikes pretty much. While we probably all knew projections were hopelessly optimistic for the Arctic, it could be that 2020 is also too optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:The "if I am 99% likely to die before retirement" bit is a false dichotomy and a failure to look at a system analytically. You aren't assigned a death date. If you are thirty right now and someone says, "Based on your present health profile, income, and spending habits, you're 99% likely to die before you can retire," do you throw your hands up in defeat? Well, apparently you do, but perhaps others would exercise, eat healthier, address other specific medical concerns if possible, engineer their lifestyle around saving, and perhaps assess opportunities for career advancement. It's not a binary choice; there's a massive sliding scale of reaction that can be taken. This is a good point, but it's also a completely different situation than the one we face. If the "death date determination" report was based on things that I could conceivably control, of course I wouldn't just throw my hands up in defeat. In this debate, though, I effectively have no control to change my destiny. edit: ah poo poo, beaten on the last page
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
RobotDogPolice posted:If I'm close to 30 now, what can I realistically expect by my 80's in terms of ecological/economic fallout? 50 years is a long time and world governments could kick into high gear and undertake- who am i kidding - Ice free summers in the Arctic, with much reduced ice area year-round. This will at the very least coincide with a very destabilized polar vortex that will like roaming down NA and Europe for suddenly very chilly winters. - The thermohaline circulation will have further slowed and possibly shut down. High latitudes in NA and Northern Europe will face severe temperature drops (might be offset by overall warming, but it's likely than when it kicks in it'll be sudden and bad). The tropics will get even warmer. - Ocean fish stocks will have died out. Possibly the majority of the ocean will have died out due to acidification and mass anoxic events plus jellyfish infestations. Aquaculture will continue to provide for some fish stocks for industrialized countries but countries reliant on the sea will starve and there will be pressure on global food production. - Larsen C will have collapsed. Unknowns on the rest of the Antarctic ice shelves and the status of Greenland, but sea level will have risen by at least .8m and possibly as high as 2 or 3 m depending on ice shelves. South Florida and Louisiana will have been abandoned. The East coast might or might not have been able to take preventive measures to deal with the flooding - it all depends on how fast and how high the sea rised. All across the world there will be similar situations, except on poorer countries. Bangladesh will have flooded and died. The Marshall Islands will have flooded and died. My birthplace will have flooded and died. The coastal real state bubble will have popped before this point, though, once the flooding was undeniable. - Speaking of bubbles, the carbon bubble will have popped at some point. Total global economic crisis that combined will all other stressors, there will be no recovery from. - Increased desertification in the american southwest. Climate refuge migrations from there and from Mexico. Remember the coast? Add that to climate refugees. - Water crises. Expect exorbitant water costs and conservation efforts. Only places with reliable access to water will be those in good positions or with money for desalinization plants. Expect climate refugees to flood them, creating sprawling shantytowns that breed drug and antibiotic-resistant diseases. - Global geopolitical instability as fingers are pointed and nations across the world weight options on measures that could be taken, some probably retreating from the global stage and closing borders as a way to deal with refugees. - Wars. Potentially nuclear wars between some of the most affected states. Bunch more other poo poo but the tl;dr is that it will be very, very, very expensive to maintain something resembling the current standards of living. Note that civilization will not collapse, though in the worst case scenarios, we will be dealing with a mass extinction event and a human population die-off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Storms-Drought-California-Rain-Snowpack-410516095.html Lots of people from my hometown in southern California are sharing this article on social media triumphantly, like "pack it up, guys: the drought is over and climate change isn't real." Pretty cool.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
eighty-four merc posted:http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Storms-Drought-California-Rain-Snowpack-410516095.html Now Im no climatologist or geologist or even a scientist, but isnt the issue with California that the reservoirs have been drained and that its been so dry for so long that heavy rains will wash away a lot of the surface soil that is still beneficial for plant growth?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Now Im no climatologist or geologist or even a scientist, but isnt the issue with California that the reservoirs have been drained and that its been so dry for so long that heavy rains will wash away a lot of the surface soil that is still beneficial for plant growth? Full disclosure: I'm none of that but the droughts make the hills all hosed up and sad and some trees and bushes are still up there trying to hold the ground down around rich people's houses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
The drought over the entire state is caused by the lack of melt from the Rockies. Direct precipitation has an impact but its not going to solve the problem California has been experiencing the last six years. Also some rain doesn't compare to more than half a decade of drought tied to climate change. Its yet another "If global warming, why snow?" If you ignore the research, sure, yea problem solved forever. Woohoo we did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
All the same, it's good to get some rain. It looked as if there was a chance it could rain in the mountains which would have been really bad as far as the snow pack goes, but they got a bunch of snow instead, which is good as well. Certainly doesn't signify anything grander than a lucky storm, but it was still good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Aquifers still hosed regardless of snow/rain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Speaking of hosed... in case you were wondering How's Sea Ice Doing? Uh... well...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Man...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Clearly the behavior we'd expect from natural climate oscillation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
It's okay you guys we just have to work hard at reducing our personal emissions and getting people to vote democrat or something and everything will work out fine. hahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
The system has, quite frankly, thrown a rod. Tipping points and whatnot. You know the horrifying part? Global sea ice volume looks even worse:
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Volume is the Canary, and that canary is quite obviously loving dying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
If ice is still capable of existing then there is no global warming. Check and mate, libtards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Welp
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
We won't know how bad things really are until August-November.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
So what skills are we going to teach our children to help them survive in the new dark age of deep seas? As monks kept the works of Virgil and Cicero alive, I want to put someone to work transcribing Twitter conversations in monasteries for ~7 centuries
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Are there any good write ups on what a hosed up polar vortex can do in the northern hemisphere? I know it will randomly make poo poo cold but there has to be way more to it than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:26
|
|