|
Cingulate posted:And that stuff is bad for the climate? I know it's poisonous to humans all by itself, but the add-ons are also climate killers (compared to natural gas)?
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Coal masks the effects of CO2 by causing dimming, hence the original post comparing a +9C -3C scenario to a +6C scenario. They look similar if you're not paying much attention, but one includes more CO2 in the atmosphere, which is bad for reasons other than merely warming up the world. Of course, as people have mentioned, the -3C component has a pretty short life as well, so if you somehow stop releasing all these gasses that cause dimming, you almost immediately shift into a significantly warmer world. Yeah this is what I was getting at. Thanks for clearing it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Ok, let me try to say it in stupid words and you can check if I got it. Burning coal puts CO2 into the atmosphere, which causes net warming, and puts other stuff into the air, which causes some short-term cooling - for a net warming effect. Natural gas puts somewhat less CO2 into the atmosphere, and much less of the other stuff. Thus, were we to switch to burning 100% gas over coal, we'd see a short-term increase in warming because the "masking" effect from the other stuff would after a while run out. But all things considered, the total state of things would improve, or at least would worsen slower than it would have on coal. Is that it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Ok, let me try to say it in stupid words and you can check if I got it. Spamming coal into the air makes it harder to notice you're hosed because you also get a nice sulfate aerosol cloud dimming the effects of warming (unless you use beautiful, clean coal  ). There is no similar buffering of pH in the ocean, it just keeps going down as you add more CO2. If you just pay attention to global mean surface temperature and don't pay attention to ocean pH, like we've tended to do, then coal makes you massively underestimate the impact of your forcings.You can look at the end-Permian and go "oh, that's a bad temperature to go to", but that doesn't explain the whole story. We probably have a much lower temperature cap for a mass extinction than the end-Permian because we have a higher amount of both positive and negative temperature forcings. All sorts of different GHGs and aerosols affect the final surface temperature, but the amount of carbonic acid in the ocean is one of the main triggers of actual mass extinctions. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Feb 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
This raises an interesting point about paleoclimate temperature records and how we can use them moving forward, because a methane-dominated heating has different impacts than a carbon dioxide-dominated one. And the amount of sulfate aerosols in either scenario reacts synergistically in different ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Ok, I honestly don't understand it. But I hope it's not too far off if I just file it under: coal = a bit worse than I thought, natural gas = a bit better than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Natural gas is composed of fairly short hydrocarbons, primarily methane and not a lot else, compared to the mass of poo poo that's all mixed in with coal. Even with scrubbers you still end up with way more dirt and side-products than you do with natural gas, which combusts pretty cleanly into CO2 and H2O. Not that we should even be burning natural gas at this point, CO2 is still pretty bad, just not as bad as CO2 + a bunch of other poo poo from coal. However, the leaks from fracking and the release of the >70x more effective of a greenhouse gas methane may make natural gas almost as bad as burning coal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:However, the leaks from fracking and the release of the >70x more effective of a greenhouse gas methane may make natural gas almost as bad as burning coal. This is true, if it can't be responsibly and safely harvested then natural gas is no better than coal, I dunno if there's a consensus on how doable that is right now though. Cingulate posted:Ok, I honestly don't understand it. But I hope it's not too far off if I just file it under: coal = a bit worse than I thought, natural gas = a bit better than I thought. The long and short of it is that they're both really awful for the environment and the fact that we still allow either of them to be burned for fuel is one of the main reasons for climate nihilism in this thread, but coal is worse overall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:This is true, if it can't be responsibly and safely harvested then natural gas is no better than coal, I dunno if there's a consensus on how doable that is right now though. https://thinkprogress.org/methane-leaks-erase-climate-benefit-of-fracked-gas-countless-studies-find-8b060b2b395d/ New satellite data and surface observations analyzed by Harvard researchers confirm previous data and observations: U.S. methane emissions are considerably higher than the official numbers from the EPA. Significantly, the EPA numbers are mostly based on industry-provided estimates, not actual measurements. While this new study doesn’t attribute a specific source to the remarkable 30 percent increase in U.S. methane emissions from 2002–2014, many other studies have identified the source of those emissions as leakage of methane from the natural gas production and delivery system. The central problem for the climate is that natural gas is mostly methane (CH4), a super-potent greenhouse gas, which traps 86 times as much heat as CO2 over a 20-year period. That’s why many studies find that even a very small leakage rate can have a large climate impact — enough to gut the entire benefit of switching from coal-fired power to gas for a long, long time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Haha, that figures as much. Like I said, if anyone was serious about fighting climate change we'd be done burning fossil fuels by now, the fact that it'd cost too much to stop isn't really a good enough excuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:https://thinkprogress.org/methane-leaks-erase-climate-benefit-of-fracked-gas-countless-studies-find-8b060b2b395d/ I don't doubt it, our water infrastructure is incredibly leaky too and natural gas leaks are not obvious on the tiny distribution lines until they get pretty big.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Ok, let me try to say it in stupid words and you can check if I got it. More or less. Coal is dirty and causes dimming, so that makes you underestimate the warming effect all that carbon you're putting in the atmosphere is actually having on the planet. Coal also releases various other pollutants that are just bad news. "I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my backyard than a coal plant" levels of bad. Coal is also less efficient. You have to burn more of it (releasing more carbon into the atmosphere) for a given unit of power compared to natural gas. So coal is worse than natural gas, and yes, if we reduced/eliminated dimming we'd see a temperature jump, but overall releasing less carbon into the atmosphere is better than releasing more carbon. Notorious' post was mainly in regards that temperature is only one aspect of this whole clusterfuck: ultimately that carbon in the atmosphere finds its way to the ocean, making it more acididc, and ocean acidification is the real killer if we're talking about global ecosystem collapse. And this is a very serious problem because while we can artificially force dimming through geoengineering (purposely releasing sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere or other methods), which would put a hold on temperature for as long as we maintain it, it does nothing for all that carbon being absorbed by the ocean. The only solution to that is to stop using fossil fuels altogether.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
would discovering fusion by 2025 even help at this point
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:would discovering fusion by 2025 even help at this point Wouldn't hurt. Every tenth of a degree matters, don't let anyone in this thread tell you otherwise. This used to be a nice thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/966391100276486144 Check out that Y-axis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This used to be a nice thread. https://www.livescience.com/1433-timeline-earth-precarious-future.html Remember this? How hilariously optimistic we were a decade ago? That downslide of expectations is still going. It's a natural result of the ever-increasing amount of evidence that things are so much worse than we could have thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:would discovering fusion by 2025 even help at this point ATOMS
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:https://thinkprogress.org/methane-leaks-erase-climate-benefit-of-fracked-gas-countless-studies-find-8b060b2b395d/ This is a fairly miserable article. The paper he's citing is unequivocal that these measurements cannot attribute increased atmospheric CH4 concentrations to any specific source. Most papers have attributed the rise in atmospheric methane to biogenic sources like wetlands and forest fires, not human activity, let alone natural gas extraction specifically. There are deficiencies in the data, which has allowed some environmental campaigners to make expansive claims about fugitive emissions, but the bulk of the evidence does not support those claims.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This is a fairly miserable article. The paper he's citing is unequivocal that these measurements cannot attribute increased atmospheric CH4 concentrations to any specific source. Most papers have attributed the rise in atmospheric methane to biogenic sources like wetlands and forest fires, not human activity, let alone natural gas extraction specifically. There are deficiencies in the data, which has allowed some environmental campaigners to make expansive claims about fugitive emissions, but the bulk of the evidence does not support those claims. are you a bot
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:are you a bot I have zero tolerance for bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This is a fairly miserable article. The paper he's citing is unequivocal that these measurements cannot attribute increased atmospheric CH4 concentrations to any specific source. Most papers have attributed the rise in atmospheric methane to biogenic sources like wetlands and forest fires, not human activity, let alone natural gas extraction specifically. There are deficiencies in the data, which has allowed some environmental campaigners to make expansive claims about fugitive emissions, but the bulk of the evidence does not support those claims. There are other studies on the fracking based leakage of CH4. Feel free to find ones that dispute the leakage, from non-industry sources.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:There are other studies on the fracking based leakage of CH4. Feel free to find ones that dispute the leakage, from non-industry sources. Okay. How about these?  https://www.carbonbrief.org/explained-fugitive-methane-emissions-from-natural-gas-production Natural gas is not like CO2 or any other pollutant. It is not an externality. Every cubic foot of natural gas that is lost as fugitive emissions is one that cannot be sold for profit. Fossil fuel companies have a strong financial incentive to control fugitive emissions, and there is every indication they are doing so. Believing in massive fugitive emissions requires not only cherry-picking studies, but also that fossil fuel companies are sacrificing profit just so they can cackle maniacally while destroying the environment, and that the EPA is collaborating with them to cover it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
I truly hope you live long enough to choke on your own poo poo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Doubtful, I'm saving up my Monsanto shill money to buy a PMC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Regarding methane pockets, I was under the impression that:quote:"There is no evidence that a very abrupt methane source(s) will be readily mobilized into the atmosphere. Such scenarios are not supported by process studies, it is not emerging observationally, and is not borne out paleoclimatically (particularly in the mid-Holocene or Eemian interglacial, where high latitude summers were hotter than today). A small trickle of CH4 release is very plausible, but methane becomes converted to CO2 pretty quickly in Earth’s atmosphere, and there’s already some 200 times more CO2 in the air than CH4. These types of carbon cycle feedbacks will likely give the direct anthropogenic carbon input just a small boost in the near future." - Christopher Colose (NASA GISS)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Regarding methane pockets, I was under the impression that: This is correct. Quaternary glacial cycles do not have paleoclimatological evidence of rapid methane releases occurring along gas hydrate stability zones. The Eemian and Holsteinian interglacials were the only ones that even inundated the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. In contrast to our current interglacial, however, the inundation period was of a shorter duration. Additionally, we will be forcing Arctic Sea Ice below any point reached during the Quaternary. The important question here is what happens during a phase change out of the Quaternary, which will become likely, in my opinion, as we move to around 2.5 - 3C GMSTA which is above the maximum of the Eemian interglacial. This is when the outcomes become both less clear but more concerning. For example, we know sedimentation pulses trigger methane releases from the GHSZ: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41...TM0MjA1NDEwNwS2 quote:However, here we show with numerical simulations that pulses of increased sedimentation dominantly controlled hydrate stability during the end of the last glaciation offshore mid-Norway. Sedimentation pulses triggered widespread gas hydrate dissociation and explains the formation of ubiquitous blowout pipes in water depths of 600 to 800 m. Maximum gas hydrate dissociation correlates spatially and temporally with the formation or reactivation of pockmarks, which is constrained by radiocarbon dating of Isorropodon nyeggaensis bivalve shells. Our results highlight that rapid changes of sedimentation can have a strong impact on gas hydrate systems affecting fluid flow and gas seepage activity, slope stability and the carbon cycle. Without ice cover to suppress convection, the Arctic is at risk of increasingly strong cyclones disturbing sea floor sediment and resulting in ebullition of methane up the water column and into the atmosphere from Ekman transport. This is the kind of feedback that is not currently modeled in climate models. It's also a feedback that has exponential uncertainty. Similarly, talik formation and permafrost retreat rapidly increase as the sea ice blanket no longer prevents a rapid increase in Arctic ocean heat content. Effects like this are why we say that a world that warms past 2C is both highly uncertain and highly dangerous. Quaternary paleoclimatology becomes less relevant, and we instead have to consider what the implication of an equable climate are. The effects of methane also have to be reconsidered again as we start passing ocean acidification mass extinction tipping points. Hydrogen sulfide works synergistically with methane to increase its global warming potential and increase stratospheric methane content because hydrogen sulfide rapidly depletes available atmospheric hydroxyl radicals, which is a major methane sink. This in turn creates more stratospheric water vapor which further increases temperature, and it rapidly destroys the stratospheric ozone shield which results in higher mutagenesis due to increased UV-B radiation. All of this goes back to the main point that climate scientists have tried to hammer home over and over and over: A 2C world is dangerous because we start to cross tipping points that take us out of the Quaternary altogether. And as of the current day, I would put the likelihood of us staying under 2C of warming by 2100 at about 2%. And fugitive natural gas emissions are absolutely a drop in the bucket. Although they are a bigger drop in the bucket than anyone in the natural gas industry claims because 
Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Dr. Jim White returns with how we are hosed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgh3Obf4LeA There's even a lead exposure mention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Dr. Jim White returns with how we are hosed: This is good poo poo so far. Love the callout to Midgley and lead in gasoline. Interesting stuff about tetrachloroethylene that I didn't know. This is a solid explanation of how poo poo works from a chemistry perspective, not just a temperature perspective. I like his point that when you live on a water planet you make everything the next generation's problem due to effect lag. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Feb 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
I feel like throwing up listening to this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Dr. Jim White returns with how we are hosed: For some reason most of the suggested videos I see in the sidebar are denialist bullshit. I logged out of my account to have a look at them and the level of ignorance and sheer idiocy in the comments is depressing as hell. I honestly can't tell if the replies are real, or if it's some denialist astroturfing crap. gently caress this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
ubachung posted:For some reason most of the suggested videos I see in the sidebar are denialist bullshit. I logged out of my account to have a look at them and the level of ignorance and sheer idiocy in the comments is depressing as hell. I honestly can't tell if the replies are real, or if it's some denialist astroturfing crap. gently caress this poo poo. The comments are a total shitshow too. It's pretty depressing that groups pay people to shill for this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Dr. Jim White returns with how we are hosed:
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Since I don't have time to watch all of this, can someone summarize what new points he makes? idk it's a good thoughtful overview of climate change taking into account research up through 2018.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:idk it's a good thoughtful overview of climate change taking into account research up through 2018. 1. No matter what we do humanity is doomed? Or 2. It's not too late to migitate the worst so that humanity could survive this century? This pessimism radiating over climate change is starting to drain the optimism from my brain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So... 3. A nice overview of climate change across the geologic record with connections to global chemical cycles and atmospheric dynamics. Not everything is a judgment on whether we're doomed or not. A lot of it is just scientists reporting facts with no conclusions either way. It's a good lecture, I recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:2. It's not too late to migitate the worst so that humanity could survive this century If humanity in general, or perhaps even just governments, could: agree a problem exists, agree on the nature of the problem, agree on the cause of the problem, agree on the magnitude of the problem, agree on the solution to the problem and then collectively work towards that solution, not only would we likely survive much longer as a species, but we could probably actually mitigate climate change significantly. The ridiculously small likelihood of achieving consensus on even one of these conditions makes me personally think that Grouchio posted:1. No matter what we do humanity is doomed I'm not a scientist, so feel free to ignore my opinion in favour of those more educated, but I really don't see us putting the brakes on our current behaviours in any kind of timeframe that could make a significant difference. By the time conditions are bad enough to convince a majority that we need to take urgent action, it will already be too late. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but at this point I expect humanity is going to at best kill off a large portion of itself. Honestly my biggest concern is that we might manage to take a significant proportion of animal and plant life with us. I don't know what the timeframe is, but I suspect we have a lot less time than most people think. Edit: sorry, I've offered my personal perspective here rather than summarising the video, which doesn't really help answer your question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
"Too late" is relative. I'm sure humanity is going to gently caress itself over to historically unprecedented levels, but I'm curious as to what degree. Can't look away from this trainwreck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
Article on using "weathering basalt" to sequester carbon: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-rock-on-farms-could-improve-soil-and-lower-co₂/ "And the climate benefit, of course, is that every ton of weathering basalt can remove about 0.3 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. To show what this might reasonably add up to, the researchers spitball a typical application rate to two-thirds of the world’s croplands. That could pull about 0.5 to 4 billion tons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere." Opinions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
If y'all are ever feeling deeply, darkly depressed about this stuff then just remember that in 10 million years (a tiny blip in Earth's geologic history) humanity will be extinct and the planet will once again be thriving with multitudes of life. Everything has a time to go, but the Earth itself and Life on it will continue A-OK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 21:17
|
|