|
kim stanley robinson is a prophet in reverse, basically
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Minge Binge posted:It's crazy how much chaos 1°C is causing. Can't wait to see what 2 has in store for us. 1 degree since when?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:On the subject of crazy geo-engineering schemes, I'm increasingly interested in proposals to turn off the sun Montgomery Burns style: Pretty cool but that doesn't fix ocean acidification at all though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:On the subject of crazy geo-engineering schemes, I'm increasingly interested in proposals to turn off the sun Montgomery Burns style: Stuff like this is cool if it's paired with rapid emissions draw downs as a way to buy slightly more time and horrifying if it's used as an excuse to continue emitting. It's basically the same deal as aerosol injection: if we keep emitting and for any reason the shade fails it's like, welp, guess we're getting some rapid loving heating because all we did was temporarily suppress the incoming radiation side of the equation without touching the radiative forcing end of things. also seems like there are some potentially lovely side effects that would come with just outright reducing the amount of light that reaches the Earth by 2% but I might be wrong about that Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Pretty cool but that doesn't fix ocean acidification at all though. another trillion for baking soda easy peasy
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Pretty cool but that doesn't fix ocean acidification at all though. My understanding was increased ocean temperature increased the possibility of catastrophic positive feedback via the release of methane from seabeds, and presumably a sunshade prevents that particular outcome. Obviously this doesn't stop the ocean from trying to destroy us in other ways ie massive sulphide release. Looking into it apparently methane isn't even poisonous, just an asphyxiant? Clearly I'm an example of someone not understanding the underlying chemistry coming up with dumb opinions about climate change. Paradoxish posted:Stuff like this is cool if it's paired with rapid emissions draw downs as a way to buy slightly more time and horrifying if it's used as an excuse to continue emitting. It's basically the same deal as aerosol injection: if we keep emitting and for any reason the shade fails it's like, welp, guess we're getting some rapid loving heating because all we did was temporarily suppress the incoming radiation side of the equation without touching the radiative forcing end of things. I like to think a global society that's committed itself to launching ~16 trillion autonomous reflectors to the L1 point is one that's finally acknowledged the need to stop emitting carbon. This optimism might be unwarranted given the history of climate change mitigation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
The grim future where we manage to put a shade at L1 and prevent total collapse of the biosphere, but industrial civilization collapses anyways and the oceans still turn just anoxic/polluted enough to kill off most sea life, would make a fascinating setting for a dystopian Sci-Fi novel. Humans wandering a dimmed world ravaged by wild temperature shifts and nightmarish winters, the oceans reduced to a vast stinking Saragasso. There's myths of what caused "the dim" but nobody has the knowledge to articulate the science and the controls have been destroyed for centuries. Rime fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
i uh... yeah like reducing solar input to the system has a whole range of consequences beyond just "less warming" you'd be shooting yourself int he dick for solar energy generation, plant metabolism...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:i uh... yeah like reducing solar input to the system has a whole range of consequences beyond just "less warming" Yeah 1.8% less light doesn't sound like a lot but niether does 2 degrees more global temperature so you really gotta research to see if the good outweighs the bad there
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:My understanding was increased ocean temperature increased the possibility of catastrophic positive feedback via the release of methane from seabeds, and presumably a sunshade prevents that particular outcome. Obviously this doesn't stop the ocean from trying to destroy us in other ways ie massive sulphide release. Looking into it apparently methane isn't even poisonous, just an asphyxiant? Clearly I'm an example of someone not understanding the underlying chemistry coming up with dumb opinions about climate change. I think the main effects of turning the temperature knob up is destroying ice sheets and shutting down deep water upwelling circulations. This should really happen in full once we're close to year-round ice free. Being able to tune solar radiation to maximize ice sheet flux would help prevent that surprisingly well by blocking more shortwave radiation in winter and less in summer. It's not really clear at what point methane release really kicks off though, but an important note about it is that atmospheric hydrogen sulfide greatly potentiates it (by removing methane •OH sinks). So the concentration of both of them need to be considered together, and you need euxinic oceans to increase atmospheric H2S. I think that ocean acidification works in ways we don't necessarily expect in these equable climates. Widespread euxinia (a Canfield ocean) and the resulting end-Permian style extinction needs productive, oxic surface waters where organic mass can be created, die, and sink into the anoxic zone. Without the life-rich top layer, sulfate-reducing bacteria don't have any 2CH2O to reduce sulfates. So if you kick up ocean acidification past a certain point, I don't think you necessarily get a euxinic Canfield ocean, I think you may just get a dead ocean altogether. There's some evidence that this is what happens toward the end of the end-Permian as carbonic acid load builds. So oceans basically come in three types: oxic, Canfield (stratified + sulfidic in the anoxic zone), and dead. Cold without too much pH load gives you oxic. Hot without too much pH load gives you sulfidic. Either with too much pH load just gives you a mostly dead ocean. So the real question in our geoengineering scenario here would be what happens if you get a cool dead ocean? Most of our paleoclimate record tells us what's going to happen if you get a hot Canfield ocean, unfortunately. A cold dead ocean is definitely going to cause a trophic cascade of some sort; foraminifera and coccolithophores are toast. What happens from there though? I'm not really sure what to conjecture at all. Maybe selectively blocking out the sun and turning the ocean into our carbon trash can works and we live? I haven't really considered much how CO2 solubility in water is affected by temperature. The forward reaction is exothermic so decreasing the temperature should result in more carbonic acid which should lower pH faster at lower temperatures since this should be the slowest reaction in the chain. This should mean that ocean acidification is worse at lower temperatures. My chemistry is kind of crap so I probably shouldn't conjecture much past there, but I think it's a real interesting problem. The relation between temperature, carbon solubility in water, and bicarbonate formation is very interesting to consider in these outcomes, and I think it's a major contributor to what makes major events in the paleontological record different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
I want to be clear that an L1 sunshade is a dumb idea, but the same can be said of any future geo-engineering program given how much cheaper it would have been to just stop emitting CO2 over the past two decades (as expensive as that would have been). Unfortunately if we've passed the point where catastrophic warming can be avoided even after achieving zero-emissions then we have to start considering dumb ideas. A solar shade probably only makes sense if we determine we're irrevocably on track towards a disastrous methane-feedback tipping point. In that regard it's interesting to know if it's even vaguely plausible. Plant metabolism is pulled in multiple ways by a solar shade. Less incident sunlight marginally reduces photosynthesis, but temperatures above ~25C shuts it down very quickly. You might actually maximize total photosynthesis by reducing incident sunlight if it keeps enough of the globe below that threshold. Like any geo-engineering scheme, unintended consequences are probably inevitable. I was vaguely impressed to learn there are organizations already seriously thinking about issues related to this one specific crazy geo-engineering proposal. Rime posted:The grim future where we manage to put a shade at L1 and prevent total collapse of the biosphere, but industrial civilization collapses anyways and the oceans still turn just anoxic/polluted enough to kill off most sea life, would make a fascinating setting for a dystopian Sci-Fi novel. This would happen far enough in the future that whatever self-replicating AI we spawned would have to take pity on us and put us in a nice air-conditioned zoo. We'd be exhibit A for how the survival probability distribution of a species is U-shaped with respect to intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
I think the risks to plant life make a good argument that the safest way to mitigate incoming solar radiation is to maximize albedo, not minimize input.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:1 degree since when? 2016? I mean, I guess it depends on when you set the comparison point, but that was .99°C global average surface temps compared to the mid-20th century, and if you set it farther back to pre-industrial then we've been over 1°C for the past decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
Don’t worry if launching a solar shade is too much we can always keep melting the icecaps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
oh hey this looks like a really solid ocean acidification chemistry overview: http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112136
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
Here's a good climate adaptation strat imo: Desalination mangroves along coastlines that suck up jellyfish n turn em into food too. Mangroves are a great carbon sink and we've kinda ruthlessly destroyed tons of them. Jellyfish will deal, they've survived all the other poo poo thrown at them fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Here's a good climate adaptation strat imo: Okay but if you eat a jellyfish does someone have to pee on your mouth? 'Cause that might be a daily compromise I'm not willing to make to survive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
channel your inner TRUMP and embrace the piss my friend
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 08:34
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Here's a good climate adaptation strat imo: Aquatic plants generally, (mangroves but also seaweed and seagrasses), are much better at sequestering carbon than land plants. We're really only now (i.e. within the last decade) starting to understand how important blue carbon is in the existing carbon cycle and what its mitigation potential is. I'm not a fan of BECCS generally because I think bioenergy is an awful way to produce electricity, but if we're really committed to such a scheme I don't see any way it could succeed without massive kelp or seaweed aquaculture. Edit: 
Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Stuff like this is cool if it's paired with rapid emissions draw downs as a way to buy slightly more time and horrifying if it's used as an excuse to continue emitting. It's basically the same deal as aerosol injection: if we keep emitting and for any reason the shade fails it's like, welp, guess we're getting some rapid loving heating because all we did was temporarily suppress the incoming radiation side of the equation without touching the radiative forcing end of things. It's really interesting how for CC you see the same kind of logic that conservatives use for abortion: people must be punished for their sins. The idea of humans 'getting off' without suffering while still being to use vast amounts of resources (which is the reason standards of living have skyrocketed in the past 1-2 century) actually angers them. Like it's quite obvious the anger in this thread surrounding technological fixes borders on a pathology that we might not suffer for our actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
I haven't been picking up on that at all
Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
To be fair most technological solutions proposed have absolutely massive problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
tsa posted:It's really interesting how for CC you see the same kind of logic that conservatives use for abortion: people must be punished for their sins. The idea of humans 'getting off' without suffering while still being to use vast amounts of resources (which is the reason standards of living have skyrocketed in the past 1-2 century) actually angers them. I don't think you'll find a single person who wouldn't wave the "fusion and replicators now" magic wand, it's just not physically realistic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What about those of us who think earth doesn't really matter but for being home to humans? That humans are what matters? OK, I have to answer this. This kind of thinking is insular and as history tells us, highly defective. So I recommend not thinking along those pathways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
tsa posted:It's really interesting how for CC you see the same kind of logic that conservatives use for abortion: people must be punished for their sins. The idea of humans 'getting off' without suffering while still being to use vast amounts of resources (which is the reason standards of living have skyrocketed in the past 1-2 century) actually angers them. This is a pretty confused and bad take. A lot of people are sadbrains that want to find a reason to not feel like any of their actions matter so they are free to do anything. A lot of the people in this thread also are taking a rigorous look at geoengineering scenarios and analyzing cause and effect. As it turns out, geoengineering successfully is much harder to do than one thinks. If you think that humans don't deal with a large amount of suffering from climate change regardless of outcome, you're just uneducated on climate change, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
tsa posted:It's really interesting how for CC you see the same kind of logic that conservatives use for abortion: people must be punished for their sins. The idea of humans 'getting off' without suffering while still being to use vast amounts of resources (which is the reason standards of living have skyrocketed in the past 1-2 century) actually angers them. This is an aggressively stupid reading of my post. Reducing incoming solar radiation without changing anything else is a recipe for disaster. It does absolutely nothing to address any other issue that comes along with high CO2 concentrations and it leaves us in a far more dire situation if our solution ever fails. We can't keep burning carbon unless we're pulling a greater amount back out of the atmosphere. This isn't a moral judgment and there is no technological solution that will change this fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Thread music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7uWN5aPkJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElE_BfQ67s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fregObNcHC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3yLtnNF6yM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w211KOQ5BMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxWv4OyR32Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Oz6Rl1RT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE49knDrm9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4 Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
tsa posted:
People use the idea of "of some magical future technology" to absolve them of all responsibility and continue to behave with reckless abandon. Its grossly irresponsible. Gambling that there will be some magical tech is extremely naive. We already have the tech to solve huge aspects of this issue but choose not to use it for bad reasons. (Nuclear) Even when we figure fusion out it will take decades upon decades for it to reach any kind of meaningful scale. So yeah we are stuck with geoengineering and its going to be really poo poo, but probably less poo poo than without.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
TSA's comment is dumb in the context of the discussion in this thread where everyone is clearly hoping for some magic bullet to get us out of this dismal situation. However I think it's an example of how the debate over climate change might proceed going forward. As the impact of climate change becomes undeniable (ie the arctic melts completely) expect conservatives to jump from denialism straight to embracing aggressive geo-engineering. As pointed out earlier in this thread Republicans in the US are absolutely already setting up to make this transition. Don't be surprised if they push to allow carbon emissions to continue for as long as possible Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Thread music Pah, lightweight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVekJTmtwqM
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
I think geoengineering is going to be a much, much harder sell than most people think too. Geoengineering projects sound good to a lot of people in the abstract, but a concrete plan to spend trillions of dollars to literally shade the sun is actually apocalyptic and scary as hell. Even the most uninformed people are going to hear about proposals like that and get freaked out in a "how did we let it get this bad?" kind of way. Conservatives will probably jump on geoengineering approaches anyway, but it's going to be an uphill battle to get any kind of public traction. These are expensive and frightening plans with complex international implications. There's a fine line they need to walk where upselling geoengineering too hard is exactly the same as saying that we're hosed and need to be doing anything we can to cut emissions. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
That'd be the best outcome though since we need to cut emissions to zero and geoengineer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:That'd be the best outcome though since we need to cut emissions to zero and geoengineer. Which makes me wonder, outside of the realm of capitalist thought: If we are going to need (and we are) massive public works projects that sequester carbon/mitigate warming, what would that look like? Massive reforestation programs? A shift to intensive greenhouse farming for localized produce and conversion of traditional farmland to forest? Death to all cows? Every roof painted white? Mines filled with biomass, liquid biomass pumped into old oil wells? Complete restructuring of transport and energy (massive public transport reform, free and available public transport, outlawing of all emission-producing electricity production)? Or even all of the above? Then we are looking at one hell of a paradigm shift, because gently caress if any boomer will lend any political or actual capital towards anything like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Which makes me wonder, outside of the realm of capitalist thought: If we are going to need (and we are) massive public works projects that sequester carbon/mitigate warming, what would that look like? Massive reforestation programs? A shift to intensive greenhouse farming for localized produce and conversion of traditional farmland to forest? Death to all cows? Every roof painted white? Mines filled with biomass, liquid biomass pumped into old oil wells? Complete restructuring of transport and energy (massive public transport reform, free and available public transport, outlawing of all emission-producing electricity production)? All of that also controlled sedimentary weathering, algaculture and seaweed / mangrove culture, possibly even deepwater biome management, the list goes on and on. We pumped one part of a big rear end chemical reaction and now we have to stabilize the rest of the reaction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:All of that also controlled sedimentary weathering, algaculture and seaweed / mangrove culture, possibly even deepwater biome management, the list goes on and on. Cool. I mean, I live in a socialized country so I'm fine with working on something like this for minimum wage because I'd be working towards literally saving humanity. It'd probably be the most hopeful thing I could possibly do with myself. But I don't think there's a lot of people out there who'd be willing to do the same, at least aged 40-45+. I mean in terms of manpower and resourced/industry if society was structured towards these efforts we would have a massive potential impact. But where the hell do you source the political will to set up these programs within the limits of democracy? I could see China doing this. Maybe. The US? No way in hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 08:59
|
|
|
My guess would be the wealthy (developed) countries swoop in on the poor (developing) nations, oppressing the people and force them to sacrifice their development by making them plant mangroves and forests because how dare they industrialize at a time like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
froglet posted:My guess would be the wealthy (developed) countries swoop in on the poor (developing) nations, oppressing the people and force them to sacrifice their development by making them plant mangroves and forests because how dare they industrialize at a time like this. Literally where we are heading with the 'it is the third world which needs to reduce its pollution' rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
And goon hot takes about how all the art and culture worth preserving are produced in the first world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
froglet posted:My guess would be the wealthy (developed) countries swoop in on the poor (developing) nations, oppressing the people and force them to sacrifice their development by making them plant mangroves and forests because how dare they industrialize at a time like this. This plus US and NATO countries seizing on climate change as a way to push back against the growing Asian powers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 13:56
|
|