|
KaptainKrunk posted:this is unironically dumb and will doom the species i read this whole thread and if these guys are correct the earth is about to enter feedback loop mechanism which will heat up this bitch like a microwave and we crossed the rubicon a long rear end time ago. its already way too late to save the planet even if somehow world wide economic degrowth is imposed and deniers are genocided. I personnaly dont believe any of this but if its true then we should adopt a live and let live mantra for the time we have left on this planet
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:i read this whole thread and if these guys are correct the earth is about to enter feedback loop mechanism which will heat up this bitch like a microwave and we crossed the rubicon a long rear end time ago. its already way too late to save the planet even if somehow world wide economic degrowth is imposed and deniers are genocided. I personnaly dont believe any of this but if its true then we should adopt a live and let live mantra for the time we have left on this planet "Its gonna heat up, and its out fault, but its too late to do anything about it" Stage 4 of of the 6 stages of Denialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
I think you mean the four-stage strategy: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen. Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it. In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do. Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
hooman posted:I wonder if there would be a way you could yearly increase taxes on consumption of CO2 producing energy and put all the money from that into funding/supporting non CO2 energy. Until eventually CO2 production becomes sufficiently costly that the non CO2 alternatives are the right choice cost wise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
double nine posted:I think you mean the four-stage strategy: No no, its like the Stages of Acceptance, but with Denialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
no, no, it's like with government policy it doesn't actually want to carry out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSD1d-6P6qI
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Gareth Gobulcoque posted:Late 2030's for a September ice free Arctic while the consesus slow transition model, seems extremely optimistic at this point. Since we're now at the point where a big melt within the historical range puts us there already. I agree, my personal belief is that we'll get there around the early 2020s with any bad year before then running the risk of killing Arctic sea ice for good. However, I think a lot of our understanding of the recent changes of the arctic haven't really been synthesized properly into models yet. e.g., Rapid Tropospheric Warming events in the arctic (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073012/abstract), Atlantic water creep deep along Svalbard currents, etc... Regardless, telling policy makers that you can expect the Arctic to be an ice-free, humid environment in less than 15 years is still pretty compelling. No more of this "The biggest threat is a few meters of Sea Level Rise by 2100" crap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:i read this whole thread and if these guys are correct the earth is about to enter feedback loop mechanism which will heat up this bitch like a microwave and we crossed the rubicon a long rear end time ago. its already way too late to save the planet even if somehow world wide economic degrowth is imposed and deniers are genocided. I personnaly dont believe any of this but if its true then we should adopt a live and let live mantra for the time we have left on this planet It's going to be such a good day when your junkie rear end dies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:i read this whole thread and if these guys are correct the earth is about to enter feedback loop mechanism which will heat up this bitch like a microwave and we crossed the rubicon a long rear end time ago. its already way too late to save the planet even if somehow world wide economic degrowth is imposed and deniers are genocided. I personnaly dont believe any of this but if its true then we should adopt a live and let live mantra for the time we have left on this planet I liked the part where you specified upon which research you base your climate change opinions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
"I don't have specific reasons to believe climate change is not happening or not anthropogenic, I just look at it as a political pejorative and thats fine with me  " is an okay response. You'd at least be honest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
i follow and read a lot of alarmist literature and they all say weve passed the point of no return. I know and it has been proven again and again that a lot of these reports are fake science or based on rigged parameters and models. were either 100% doomed or this is all natural and the earth has mechanisms to balance its temperature out or maybe it doesn't and were still doomed. either way dont tread on me
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:i follow and read a lot of alarmist literature and they all say weve passed the point of no return. I know and it has been proven again and again that a lot of these reports are fake science or based on rigged parameters and models. were either 100% doomed or this is all natural and the earth has mechanisms to balance its temperature out or maybe it doesn't and were still doomed. either way dont tread on me Treading on you is exactly how to bring it down from 100 to 99 though, worth it imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Lol the climate nihilists have convinced the Freep crowd at least. Congratulations I hope you feel very proud. Match made in heaven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
hey like, i dunno 100 pages back or so, somebody had a great list of the stages of denialism. can anyone paste that and save me hunting for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Morbus posted:The reality is that there are already like a billion people with a lower carbon footprints than you will ever have; the climate is headed into the toilet just fine despite them, their collective impact on climate policy is exactly gently caress all, and having a few million westerners join them isn't going to tip the scales. Also, most all of the people with a lower carbon footprint that an average westerner would gladly take on that carbon load in exchange for the material comforts of a first world lifestyle. People just don't give a poo poo about the planet if it requires any sort of real sacrifice. Like, if you think climate change can be solved without killing and oppressing billions of people, this is what happened in Mexico when the price of gasoline went up 20% after subsidies were removed. A guy literary drove his vehicle into a line of police guarding a distribution center. Because gas prices went up 20%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Or the millions of people attempting to flee the desertification of North Africa and the Middle East, by risking death to cross into Europe where they will languish in a squalid camp for untold years. I don't really get people who can look at the crispy toasted remains of the fertile crescent, look at the vast ruins of cities and empires which once flourished in that blasted wasteland, and just shrug and decide that has no bearing on the present. It has to be some kind of biblical thinking "Lol, Babylon and Assyria were just cursed by god, yo! That's all there is to it!". Meanwhile, the frontrunners of our own bronze age collapse are staring at us through chain link fences across the Balkans. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
i think of this thread every time i eat a ribeye steak for dinner, which is every other day
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
If everybody switched to electric cars and solar powered homes, what would be the next big obstacles in terms of CO2? Meat consumption?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:i think of this thread every time i eat a ribeye steak for dinner, which is every other day *drags McDonald's employee into street and executes them
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:If everybody switched to electric cars and solar powered homes, what would be the next big obstacles in terms of CO2? Meat consumption? prevalent use of non-nuclear electricity globewide e: i know you said solar powered homes but industrial consumption of electricity is going to be a huge factor Polio Vax Scene fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:If everybody switched to electric cars and solar powered homes, what would be the next big obstacles in terms of CO2? Meat consumption? Airplanes. If you take one round-trip a year of any appreciable length whatsoever you already blew your entire carbon budget for the year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:If everybody switched to electric cars and solar powered homes, what would be the next big obstacles in terms of CO2? Meat consumption? If you took care of all emissions from power and transportation, next would probably be home heating and cow farts. Then something like gas/methane leaks and feedback loops from melting permafrost, and maybe industrial chemistry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Another big CO2 producer is concrete production.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Akilles posted:Another big CO2 producer is concrete production. but... but... my wall...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Is there any even remotely conceivable way to get planes in the air without fossil fuels? Seems like many other problems at least have a solution (in theory) but I've never heard of nuclear planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Is there any even remotely conceivable way to get planes in the air without fossil fuels? Seems like many other problems at least have a solution (in theory) but I've never heard of nuclear planes. Both the USA and the Soviets investigated nuclear powered planes for cold war reasons, not all that practical. Biofuels could conceivably work. It would be much easier to sort cars out first. We can worry (or not worry) about planes after we fix that (don't fix that).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Is there any even remotely conceivable way to get planes in the air without fossil fuels? Seems like many other problems at least have a solution (in theory) but I've never heard of nuclear planes. Yes you can produce liquid fuels from any energy source via syngas manufacure, or biological approaches. So like in fantasy land you could imagine fusion reactors sitting out on the ocean using energy to crack co2 and h2o into hydrocarbons and tankers pulling up to fill up on kerosene for your airplanes (essentially storing fusion energy output in the form of chemical energy). As a contrived, easy to understand but not to actually do example. Liquid fuels like gasoline are actually pretty optimal for transport due to insanely high energy density and safety/nonvolatility. In 500,000ad you might still be using gas in your motorcycle, it just wouldn't be fossil gas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:If everybody switched to electric cars and solar powered homes, what would be the next big obstacles in terms of CO2? Meat consumption? World wide, electricity production and heating account for about 35-40% of greenhouse gas forcing. Manufacturing and industrial activity (like cement production, for example) account for ~20%. Transport accounts for ~15%. Agriculture (including cow farts) account for ~15%. For just the US, electricity+heating are still ~40%. Industrial emissions are still around 20%. Transport accounts for ~25-30% of US emissions, and agriculture ~10%. As far as transportation emissions go, in the US, cars and trucks account for ~85% of all transportation sector emissions. I'm not sure what the global breakdown is, but I expect it is broadly similar, with light duty vehicles and trucks accounting for much more than aircraft, boats, ships, and trains combined. So, best case, if you switch ALL heating and electricity production to zero emission sources, and change ALL cars and trucks to electric, you would reduce total CO2 equivalent GHG emissions by around 50-65%, i.e. you'd cut them in half or by 2/3rds, ballpark. Roughly 1/3 of emissions come from industrial and agricultural emissions that would not, directly, be improved simply by a renewable electricity grid and electric transportation infrastructure. That said, abundant renewable electricity could in principle offset industrial emissions that come from e.g. on site burning of coal or fossil fuels for heat, process steam, mechanical work, etc. Overall, you could potentially cut emissions by as much as 75-80% just through zero emission electricity production and electric transportation, but that's pushing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Processes to produce bio derived jet fuel are viable today (not price competitive though and not scalable without other sacrifices). That'd at least get to "carbon neutral" assuming the technology was in place to have emission-free processing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Morbus posted:World wide, electricity production and heating account for about 35-40% of greenhouse gas forcing. Manufacturing and industrial activity (like cement production, for example) account for ~20%. Transport accounts for ~15%. Agriculture (including cow farts) account for ~15%. I appreciate your informative post. I feel like a mass movement towards solar/nuclear and electric transportation is possible. Without some massively effective carbon capture technology on the horizon we may be hosed either way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Is there any even remotely conceivable way to get planes in the air without fossil fuels? Seems like many other problems at least have a solution (in theory) but I've never heard of nuclear planes. Zero emission hydrocarbon fuels are the best bet in the near to medium term. Biofuels are one way of doing this. Prior to the explosion of fracking and subsequent plummeting of natural gas prices, the US DOE was funding "electrofuel" research where electrical power is used to convert CO2 and water into hydrocarbons, either through direct electrochemical reduction of CO2 (poor efficiency), or through microbial electrosynthesis where biological pathways similar to those used in biofuels are exploited, but in a way that can be powered by direct current rather than photosynthesis. Longer term, battery powered aircraft aren't entirely out of the question if high specific energy chemistries like lithium-air can ever be made practical. For example, liquid fossil fuels have an energy density of around 40 MJ/kg, and the maximum theoretical energy density of lithium-air (by themselves, not counting the components of a battery) is also around 40 MJ/kg. Even if the ultimate energy density is considerably lower, the overall efficiency of an electric motor powered fan could be nearly twice as high as a turbofan. You'd still have the problem of having to carry the weight of your fuel with you the whole flight though. And this kind of technology is so far off that if and when it ever becomes available, the efficiency of aircraft turbine engines will have improved (whereas electric motors can't be made much more efficient). Hydrocarbon or hydrogen fueled gas turbines will probably always be more efficient and have better power to weight ratios than even the most exotic theoretical best-case battery powered turbofans ever can. In any case there is absolutely no way you will see battery powered aircraft on any time frame relevant for reducing GHG emissions. Edit: like the other guy says: sort out cars first. Air travel isn't negligible but it's a very small piece of the pie overall. With absolutely heroic engineering efforts on zero emission aircraft, you may end up reducing global emissions by 2-3%. Phasing out the most egregious CFCs is a lot easier and would get you twice that. Compared to widespread adoption of electric cars, it's not even remotely close Morbus fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Edit: like the other guy says: sort out cars first. Air travel isn't negligible but it's a very small piece of the pie overall. With absolutely heroic engineering efforts on zero emission aircraft, you may end up reducing global emissions by 2-3%. Phasing out the most egregious CFCs is a lot easier and would get you twice that. Compared to widespread adoption of electric cars, it's not even remotely close It's settled then. When my current car dies I will buy an electric one. I will try and look sexy as gently caress driving it to encourage others to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Hope the majority of energy supplied by your local utility isn't from coal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Hope the majority of energy supplied by your local utility isn't from coal. We have a solar powered car charging location in my town.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:It's settled then. When my current car dies I will buy an electric one. I will try and look sexy as gently caress driving it to encourage others to do the same. You know what looks particularly sexy? Guillotining the most responsible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
It's true, the French Revolution was an especially sexy time. Just look at all those people singing in those fabulous outfits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Hope the majority of energy supplied by your local utility isn't from coal. Even if it is, it's much easier for renewables to displace fossil fuels used for electricity production than it is for them to replace gasoline or LPG/CNG used for transportation directly. And if demand for electricity goes up to the point where new capacity needs to be installed, renewables (wind especially) are already cost competitive. The bottom line is if demand for energy shifts away from gasoline and towards electricity, you will end up with emission reductions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:I appreciate your informative post. I've written about them in this thread before, but we've got at least four candidates for that right now. It'd technically be five, if somebody industrializes algae-derived biofuel. There's a lot of interesting research in zero/neutral-carbon production and there's something new every week to talk about, but it's the same story every time: it's something that could help, but it's an immature technology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
two people said this already but just to drive it home, after cars and electricity comes home-heating but home heating single family homes is absurdly wasteful compared to multi-unit buildings: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11731 quote:Households living in apartment buildings with five or more units use about half as much energy as other types of homes 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:two people said this already but just to drive it home, after cars and electricity comes home-heating City living seems more realistic for a green lifestyle than hermit in the woods. City living also would be easier for lower income people because bus fare is cheaper than a new electric car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:21
|
|