|
hobbesmaster posted:Also you'd just need to scrub the breathing air, right? Buy stock in CPAP companies? This guy gets it. Thug Lessons posted:You get cognitive decline from setting the thermostat a few degrees too high in the summer. In fact large parts of the world lack air conditioning and are unable to set a thermostat at all, or for that matter proper ventilation to assure optimal CO2 levels. And there's a whole host of other factors too. Atmospheric CO2 is a drop in the bucket of this problem and this problem is a drop in the bucket of the problems created by rising atmospheric CO2. "You do your best for your children, but the air they're breathing is holding them back." <cut to video of a child trying to study, coughing, ominous music> "Elevated CO2 levels in your home and school significantly degrades your child's mental function, putting them at a serious disadvantage." <pictures of tests graded F, denied college applications, disappointed child> "Breathe easier about your child's future with Clean-Air environmental control system, and help them succeed in this stunted hell-world we've built." Also elevated CO2-levels affecting mental ability and decision-making is well established across multiple studies and publications. It's not surprising that a few crank journals picked up on it and I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you're just arguing a general stuffiness isn't our main problem given the oceans are dying I won't disagree. However it's notable in that it will negatively affect everyone in the future in a very personal, unavoidable way. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Mar 4, 2018 |
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
These are completely different things. I'm not sure if I'd call negative cognitive effects from CO2 well-established, but there are several reputable findings that suggest that including a Harvard study from a few years ago. It's not primarily a climate issue though, since the main source of these potentially dangerous levels is (and will continue to be) human respiration, not CO2 pollution. Trust me, if atmospheric CO2 is at >1000 ppm you're going to have MUCH bigger problems to worry about. What E_G is talking about is the air literally turning into poison, which is crankery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Worrying about breathable CO2 is like worrying about the noxious chemicals given off by your sofa if it gets set on fire- It's a valid concern somewhat offset by the fact everything else is on fire by then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:These are completely different things. I'm not sure if I'd call negative cognitive effects from CO2 well-established, but there are several reputable findings that suggest that including a Harvard study from a few years ago. It's not primarily a climate issue though, since the main source of these potentially dangerous levels is (and will continue to be) human respiration, not CO2 pollution. Trust me, if atmospheric CO2 is at >1000 ppm you're going to have MUCH bigger problems to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Honestly if this "the air is poison soon" hypothesis was a real thing you'd think scientists would drop even talking about climate change and focus on making sure to mention that the air is poison now with "oh yeah, the climate also is changing" as a distant footnote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Yeah if there was a reason to believe the air was going to poison us you'd better believe the IPCC and the EPA would be telling us about it. The only way these narratives survive is because people buy into this sort of reverse-denialism where the IPCC are all liars who refuse to admit the looming apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
TACD posted:If Thug Lessons' comment about submarine CO2 concentration is accurate, then do people returning from lengthy assignments on submarines suffer acidosis? the 70s thing may or may not be an issue but it feels like if anything the military funding this would be a point in its favor, they don't want the monkeys in an expensive piece of hardware to be dumb or dead from co2 complications
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Yeah if there was a reason to believe the air was going to poison us you'd better believe the IPCC and the EPA would be telling us about it. The only way these narratives survive is because people buy into this sort of reverse-denialism where the IPCC are all liars who refuse to admit the looming apocalypse. There seems to be a lack of lifetime CO2 exposure threshold research, however. It could well be wrong; I was simply looking at the article that was posted in October and noticed what the author was actually claiming. In other news: https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/970516695184912384 Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Mar 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
I wonder if turtle is going to personally contribute to the " things climate alarmists said would happen" genre with his enthusiasm for climate change fan fiction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:the 70s thing may or may not be an issue but it feels like if anything the military funding this would be a point in its favor, they don't want the monkeys in an expensive piece of hardware to be dumb or dead from co2 complications …in any case, I feel satisfied that of all the problems climate change will cause, "literally suffocating humanity" isn't one (yet) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 12:19
|
|
|
Can anyone say... feedback loops? https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2691/far-northern-permafrost-may-unleash-carbon-within-decades/#.Wp2t4PRSWl8.twitter This just makes me so, so sad... It's genuinely upsetting that the most powerful people in the world are choosing to do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
froglet posted:Can anyone say... feedback loops? Anyway, 10 times as much as human emissions today would be more than 20ppm rise annually, maybe even worse as sinks probably will have considerably declined by that point. We won't be around to see 2300, of course, but that's pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Can anybody find the actual article? It's not clear whether that's good or bad from the summary. We don't care much what emissions will be hundreds of years from now, but we care a great deal what it will be over the next several decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Okay, found it. In short, it's extremely good news. That "ten times as much carbon as annual human emissions" is a cumulative total, not an annual rate. In other words, the Arctic permafrost won't be releasing much carbon at all, and will be releasing a minuscule amount this century. We didn't expect it to emit much, but this study suggests even those numbers were an over-estimate. That said, this is just one study. It's also a model, and people who work on this tend to think models under-estimate Arctic emissions. But we should certainly hope it's true, because it means we won't have to worry about Arctic emissions for centuries and even then they'll be a minor problem. https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/123/2018/tc-12-123-2018.pdf Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Thanks for finding the source I was surprised NASA didnt link it. News seems pretty good at face value. Can't wait to read it tonight
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
I actually linked the wrong one (old link was the peer review comments). Updated. And yeah, if it pans out it's fantastic news. The most vulnerable permafrost carbon will be protected from entering the atmosphere for centuries and we may not see the Arctic become a net carbon source until as late as 2100 even under RCP8.5.
Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Yeah the vegetation modeling in the lower Arctic is the part I'm interested about. If this gets replicated it seems like the mercury cycle is likely the bigger area of concern for permafrost thaw
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Here's the meat of the paper. Honestly from what I can tell most permafrost experts think we're going to emit a whole lot more from the Arctic than 30 GtC this century, whatever's absorbed into the biosphere. But read that NASA article and you'd think it's the apocalypse. Maybe they're just thumbing their nose at Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
froglet posted:Can anyone say... feedback loops? The medication must be working because now I read stuff like this and I feel eerily calm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
It wasn't mentioned here but early this month the Washington state senate failed to pass a carbon tax bill. This was the follow-up to the failed ballot initiative in 2016 famously opposed by a broad range of environmentalists. This article has a nice summary of environmentalist's attempts to pass a carbon tax in Washington state to date, up to the latest proposed 2018 ballot initiative proposed by theThe Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy. I'm not sure a mid-term election is the best opportunity to try to pass a carbon tax but maybe the fabled blue wave will deliver. Relatedly I happened to see this opinion piece by a conservative climate-change believer where he criticizes carbon taxes as an inefficient way to reduce emissions due to displaced production. Obviously this criticism can be applied to literally any environmental measure that increases the price of carbon and isn't implemented globally, but it appears to me a relatively honest "conservative" critique of a carbon tax from someone who isn't denying the problem exists altogether. For reference it's not surprising this opinion appeared in the National Post, a failed Canadian conservative newspaper. The author also chaired a conference panel with some of the conservative movement’s most knowledgeable climate policy experts. As far as I can tell their only real conclusion was China replacing coal with LNG plants would be a cheap way to reduce global emissions. Presumably these will be the kinds of arguments against carbon taxes/decarbonizing going forward as denying climate change completely becomes untenable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2FxJelkAtI This is a nice video. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Mar 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:It wasn't mentioned here but early this month the Washington state senate failed to pass a carbon tax bill. This was the follow-up to the failed ballot initiative in 2016 famously opposed by a broad range of environmentalists. This article has a nice summary of environmentalist's attempts to pass a carbon tax in Washington state to date, up to the latest proposed 2018 ballot initiative proposed by theThe Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy. I'm not sure a mid-term election is the best opportunity to try to pass a carbon tax but maybe the fabled blue wave will deliver. I do not forsee natural gas getting replaced any time soon. (Unless the utility decides to stop selling electricity to California and use it to take the place of natural gas plants.) Senor P. fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Mar 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:natural gas getting replaced Cart Senor P. posted:Carbon tax Horse
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:Why does Washington state need a Carbon tax when we get like 80% of our power from hydro generation and the only large coal plant we have (Centralia) is already on its way out? http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/3_1_Cement_Production.pdf https://goo.gl/maps/kYrK3S4ZBjs Etc. Electricity production is not the only major carbon emitter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
It's weird seeing all the serious frowning faces on cable news talking about Tillerson being humiliated when you remember that he should be put up against a wall and shot along with the rest of the Exxon executive suite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
buried neck deep in a compost heap with a water bottle drip feed just above his head aimed at the top of his forhead
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's weird seeing all the serious frowning faces on cable news talking about Tillerson being humiliated when you remember that he should be put up against a wall and shot along with the rest of the Exxon executive suite. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:buried neck deep in a compost heap with a water bottle drip feed just above his head aimed at the top of his forhead
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
both p. personal methods for essentially a bulk trash problem, just feed them all into an industrial shredder from a large hopper
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2FxJelkAtI
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's weird seeing all the serious frowning faces on cable news talking about Tillerson being humiliated when you remember that he should be put up against a wall and shot along with the rest of the Exxon executive suite. Rex asked Trump to stay in the Paris Climate Agreement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:Why does Washington state need a Carbon tax when we get like 80% of our power from hydro generation and the only large coal plant we have (Centralia) is already on its way out? Even with all this clean energy the per capita carbon emissions of Washington state are still very high by global standards (to the extent that measuring carbon emissions for individual states is meaningful). Westerners in general and North Americans in particular have a real blind spot about how much carbon they're collectively emitting. Of course a carbon tax is warranted in Washington state, if only to reduce consumption-related emissions. The Citizen's Climate Lobby is at least trying to get a national carbon tax in the US, although I can't imagine it's much fun lobbying on this issue with the current congress. There is a bigger issue your reply touches on, in that currently climate change mitigation policies are mainly pursued in regions or nations that are relatively small emitters overall. Emission reductions in these areas are more expensive than other options (for example replacing coal with natural gas plants in China). Their impact can also be reduced if the local mitigation causes displacement of production to regions that use a higher proportion of fossil fuels for energy generation etc. It's not ideal to pursue climate change mitigation policies in a single region or nation, we really need an effective international framework to deal with the problem ie an international carbon tax. This is of course not happening any time soon, and the Washington state example shows we're still struggling to implement mitigation policies even at the sub-national level. Canada's recent experience implementing carbon taxes hasn't been easy either. The drawn-out democratic process currently underway to implement carbon pricing in Washington state is in stark contrast to the ease and speed production can move around the world to cheaper region's with laxer environmental regulations. I'm sure there's a much better way to express this, but modern investment capital has become a lot more sophisticated than most human institutions (including nation states). It's operating at a global scale and efficiently moving around local obstacles to profit while people are still mainly thinking about politics and institutions at the national or even regional level. The conservative criticism of carbon pricing is it simply displaces emissions elsewhere and they're not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
You're overstating that. Most of the CO2 sources in the US are either impossible or uneconomical to relocate. You can't offshore people's cars or the Permian Basin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're overstating that. Most of the CO2 sources in the US are either impossible or uneconomical to relocate. You can't offshore people's cars or the Permian Basin. No, but you can push emissions regulations that help limit overall vehicle emissions. But under our current EPA, which is fighting "restrictive emissions laws", that's unlikely. They are going to do a lot of loving damage before Trump leaves office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Rex asked Trump to stay in the Paris Climate Agreement. Because leaving it made his job as Secretary of State harder, not because he cares. The dude spent the last thirty years denying climate change, burying evidence of it, and funding climate change denial science.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Because leaving it made his job as Secretary of State harder, not because he cares. The dude spent the last thirty years denying climate change, burying evidence of it, and funding climate change denial science. It's not hard to be the "better man" in a Trump Administration. FWIW: Arnold Swartznegger is suing Exxon et. al. and the like on the basis, as with tobacco, they knowingly lied to the public on the climate issue. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/03/13/arnold-schwarzenegger-sue-oil-companies-first-degree-murder/419368002/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
I think in not even 100 years posterity will agree with me. Rex Tillerson has spent his life making conscious decisions to trade profit now for millions of lives in the future. Exxon has known the general outline of the worst case scenario since the 1970s. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Mar 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think in not even 100 years posterity will agree with me. Rex Tillerson has spent his life making conscious decisions to trade profit now for millions of lives in the future. Exxon has known the general outline of the worst case scenario since the 1970s. I do not buy the argument that people are willfully ignorant of their consumption's effect on the environment. (One does not have to be a Chemical Engineer to figure some of this poo poo out.) But hey, Exxon Mobil is bad, they lied. (Most companies do, surprise surprise.) Let's blame them for everything, and you know not hold our selves responsible for our own consumption or inaction. Look at something like single use plastic which is pretty well known how it effects the environment. Guess what? People still use it, and ignore the problem at a local, national, and global scale. Or what about over-fishing through out the world's ocean? This poo poo ain't rocket science, it is literally meeting the definition of "Tragedy of the Commons". Senor P. fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Mar 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Sorry but you can't hold the super rich and powerful, particularly not when they're located in key positions regarding the subject matter, under the same diffusion of responsibility standards as us plebs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 04:31
|
|
