|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But you still say you took planes. With all the moral superiority you didn’t even manage to not use planes, just later decide you felt bad and that you wouldn’t watch an eclipse. Yep. I grew up and started adhering to a coherent ideology and then started living by it. I am a better person for it now. You really should give austerity a try. It's literally as easy as deciding you're not going to go watch an eclipse even though it would be really cool.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Take a step back and just take it all in. It's wonderful to behold in all its head-up-rear end glory. 85% of americans have used a plane. There is 100,000+ flights a day. airplanes are part of modern society. If your plan you will personally go through every itinerary and decide case by case if you personally like the person's reason to flying? Flying is flying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Yep. I grew up and started adhering to a coherent ideology and then started living by it. I am a better person for it now. I doubt you've really tried it. The most energy-intensive appliance you're likely to have in your home is a washing machine + dryer. Do you really wash your clothes by hand? Doubt it. Environmentalists focus on big-ticket items like international flights but carbon emissions are mostly driven by everyday energy expenditures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:12
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You really should give austerity a try. It's literally as easy as deciding you're not going to go watch an eclipse even though it would be really cool. Maybe you should try going to look at an eclipse if you like eclipses instead of thinking you will be somehow rewarded for individual personal self denial. There is going to be absolutely no amount of environmental problems solved by people self denying themselves eclipses. If someone invented a wing that saved like .0001% of the fuel that would release a thousand times less carbon by the end of a single day than you will ever in your entire life "save" by some weird staying home from eclipses self sacrifice. None of your personal tiny consumer choices are going to matter at all to the environment unless you have some realistic plan to get a million other people to follow them too. Fixing the actual problems is the only actual solution. Here is a cool picture of an eclipse I took using the magnetic media of a floppy disk as a filter: 
Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I doubt you've really tried it. The most energy-intensive appliance you're likely to have in your home is a washing machine + dryer Fellate me, for I have forsaken the pleasures of modern life for the sake of your stupid grandchildren.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I doubt you've really tried it. The most energy-intensive appliance you're likely to have in your home is a washing machine + dryer. Do you really wash your clothes by hand? Doubt it. Environmentalists focus on big-ticket items like international flights but carbon emissions are mostly driven by everyday energy expenditures. Don't you worry about my kWh consumption, I live in France. And I don't have a dryer. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Maybe you should try going to look at an eclipse if you like eclipses instead of thinking you will be somehow rewarded for individual personal self denial. There is going to be absolutely no amount of environmental problems solved by people self denying themselves eclipses. If someone invented a wing that saved like .0001% of the fuel that would release a thousand times less carbon by the end of a single day than you will ever in your entire life "save" by some weird staying home from eclipses self sacrifice. None of your personal tiny consumer choices are going to matter at all to the environment unless you have some realistic plan to get a million other people to follow them too. Fixing the actual problems is the only actual solution. Of course my CO2 emissions are meaningless in the face of humanity's emissions, but so is my personal pleasure. The harm I'd do would be literally microscopic, but the value of the 180 seconds of pleasure I'll derive from it is even more laughable. Thank you for the picture, though. I never said I was going to be "rewarded" for anything. I never called my actions (or lack thereof) a sacrifice. I don't believe renouncing transcontinental travel for leisure purposes to be a sacrifice. It is actually extremely easy. You should give it a try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:85% of americans have used a plane. There is 100,000+ flights a day. airplanes are part of modern society. If your plan you will personally go through every itinerary and decide case by case if you personally like the person's reason to flying? Flying is flying. You also have a definition for poverty that's commendably incorrect and speaks volumes about your soul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:
oh no! not my soul!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:
okay, but if you know that the thing you are doing is not actual environmentalism why do it? Why waste time doing fake and useless distraction mock versions of environmentalism instead of figuring out a way to work on real environmentalism in some way? Being someone that actually cares then expending all your energy into fake dead ends where you somehow pretend you save the planet by not watching eclipses you wanted to see seems like the worst possible angle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
So don't not fly, but do continue to advocate to my representatives for all air travel to be banned as a nonviable technology, got it. There's a whole bunch of other fun stuff to talk to them about too, like how long do you think it is before people start mass-migrating inland from the east coast? Heartland and Midwest need to get ready to produce more food with worse weather and more pollution from bigger cities, and if we don't get some lead time in on it, oh boy it'll suck more. What's the thread's beliefs on an acceptable CO2 target? 350? 400? Ford's future city plan contains the assumption that we stabilize at 450, and this will supposedly keep temperatures to no more than 2C by 2100. I tend to think hitting 450 would have us at 2C+ within years of it. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:okay, but if you know that the thing you are doing is not actual environmentalism why do it? Why waste time doing fake and useless distraction mock versions of environmentalism instead of figuring out a way to work on real environmentalism in some way? Being someone that actually cares then expending all your energy into fake dead ends where you somehow pretend you save the planet by not watching eclipses you wanted to see seems like the worst possible angle. Not doing all the stuff I'm not doing is not "saving the planet" and I've never pretended that it is. It is merely "not making the situation worse". It's not good, it's merely not bad. It's also not a waste of time or energy, because it doesn't cost me any of my time or energy. Harm reduction is definitely one component of environmentalism, though. It's one side of the coin, the other side being advocating for and working towards solutions to the issues surrounding the environment. My way of doing that is mostly through political activism in support of politicians and parties that advocate for huge national investments in renewable technology, collective transportation, improved land use, aquaculture, social and economic justice, and international cooperation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think everyone defines poverty by being able to consume less products and services. That is pretty much the actual definition of poverty.  
90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:. It is merely "not making the situation worse". But it doesn't do that. Trying to solve environmental problems through your own personal consumption of hamburgers or eclipses is nothing. You are making a show of doing something while doing less than nothing. You want to see an eclipse and you aren't going to and you are going to miss your chance for absolutely no reason. There is no possible way that environmental problems by not seeing once in a life time eclipses. And focusing on things like that instead of real problem just makes environmentalism seem more obsessed with some sort of religious aestheticism and not a genuine attempt to solve actual problems. If you like eclipses go friggin see it. If you don't even like eclipses in the first place you just generated a fake thing you didn't even want to do anyway that you can brag about not doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
I’m not making a show of anything, Owl Of Cream Cheese, I’m merely telling you about my life because you prompted me about it. I know it’s nothing. It’s nothing to me at least. It takes zero effort on my part and I wouldn’t say I focus on it. That’s why I find you bristling at me for not doing anything frankly baffling. Why are you so angry that I’m not going to the US and living like you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Is it because I, unlike you, have overcome my childish stage of growing unbearably frustrated when I don’t do something I would have liked to do? You don’t have to be a slave to your every whim, Owl Of Cream Cheese. You can realize that some things you want to do are extremely wasteful and your life wouldn’t actually be worse if you didn’t do them. Go get high and watch a compilation of eclipse pics set to vaporwave on Youtube instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Hypothesis: this thread is funded by the Koch brothers to keep people concerned about climate changed occupied with fighting each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:That’s why I find you bristling at me for not doing anything frankly baffling. Why are you so angry that I’m not going to the US and living like you? Because the lie that the solution to environmental problems is for individuals to do a couple feel good self sacrifices is extremely harmful and is going to kill a lot of people. And it absolutely sucks to let the future of the human race fall into such a lame trap of thinking lame symbolic self denial is gonna help something. It's replacing real desire for progress with scoring righteousness points. Like you didn't even manage to not fly on airplanes, you literally flew on them until you decided you had enough then you said you'd stop. Even you who is so good didn't even manage to avoid it. You just managed to later decide you would stop once you already had!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
I swear this thread goes back and forth between "that is to small to change anything" and "that is too hard so no one will do it".
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
I cannot find anyone in this thread saying that individual initiatives to reduce one’s individual carbon footprint are "the solution". In fact, I can quote posts of mine on this very page that contradict this idea. I think you are confusing me with someone who lives entirely in your head. I hope that one day, you understand that you don’t actually need to live like you do, and that your life won’t be worse if you don’t. In the meantime, enjoy your transcontinental cat petting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I hope that one day, you understand that you don’t actually need to live like you do, and that your life won’t be worse if you don’t. In the meantime, enjoy your transcontinental cat petting. I hope you go to the eclipse. If eclipses are something you care about then when you are 80 that time you went to an eclipse will be something you look back on as an important part of your life, you looking back at the time you symbolically self flagellation by skipping a chance to see a thing you cared about in a gesture that even you admit had only a microscopic and totally meaningless effect will not be that. (if you don't care about eclipses that much then whatever I guess, not going to a thing you don't want to go to isn't a sacrifice)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:So don't not fly, but do continue to advocate to my representatives for all air travel to be banned as a nonviable technology, got it. We almost hit +2°C in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:We almost hit +2°C in 2016. That's not what +2C means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's not what +2C means. Feel free to elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:What's the thread's beliefs on an acceptable CO2 target? 350? 400? Ford's future city plan contains the assumption that we stabilize at 450, and this will supposedly keep temperatures to no more than 2C by 2100. I tend to think hitting 450 would have us at 2C+ within years of it. Then you have no clue what you're talking about. It's not enough to cause +2C warming, and even if it was the planet wouldn't warm that fast. To answer your question, we should eventually get CO2 <350ppm because otherwise the Greenland ice sheet will melt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Feel free to elaborate. When we talk about a +2C world, we're talking about an annual mean temperature anomaly. For 2016, that was +0.94C.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Then you have no clue what you're talking about. It's not enough to cause +2C warming, and even if it was the planet wouldn't warm that fast. To answer your question, we should eventually get CO2 <350ppm because otherwise the Greenland ice sheet will melt. Ok, I'm clueless. Please give me a clue on how we achieve a carbon negative civilization and reach 350 ppm without immense austerity, because last time I checked, solar, wind, nuclear power plants, electrical grids, etc all have irreducible associated emissions, so if they're part of our mandatory emissions spending, something somewhere else has to give.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Ok, I'm clueless. Please give me a clue on how we achieve a carbon negative civilization and reach 350 ppm without immense austerity, because last time I checked, solar, wind, nuclear power plants, electrical grids, etc all have irreducible associated emissions, so if they're part of our mandatory emissions spending, something somewhere else has to give. Inflicting austerity on people won't lower carbon emissions, only decarbonization will. I'm not convinced we can actually make it below 350, because it would take tens of trillions of dollars to accomplish, but it should be the goal. If we can't make it we'll get SLR, and that will cost even more. If you want specifics, right now I think we should do BECCS but with macro- and micro-algae. You get the benefits of BECCS, (negative emissions and lots of energy), without the downsides, (immense land use). But really what we should be doing is pouring a ton of money into research on negative emissions so we can figure out which method looks most economical and scalable. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Hypothesis: this thread is funded by the Koch brothers to keep people concerned about climate changed occupied with fighting each other. Hypothesis: This thread is funded by aliens who want to destroy us. Evidence: The longer I read the stupid slap fights in here, the more children/CO2 I want to produce.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:When we talk about a +2C world, we're talking about an annual mean temperature anomaly. For 2016, that was +0.94C. +0.94°C above... ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:+0.94°C above... ? The 20th century average.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The 20th century average. Right - and the 20th century average is how much above pre-industrial levels? Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Inflicting austerity on people won't lower carbon emissions, only decarbonization will. I'm not convinced we can actually make it below 350, because it would take tens of trillions of dollars to accomplish, but it should be the goal. If we can't make it we'll get SLR, and that will cost even more. Decarbonization is austerity though. Jets are a great example because for air travel to be decarbonized (and for electric cars to be ubiquitous) battery technology has to have a "and then a miracle happened" moment. It's a fantasy to ignore the non-negotiable status of fossil emissions to our current mode of civilization, and particularly to the set of technologies built around the conversion of explosive liquids to rotary motion, so the only conclusion is that we would necessarily have to somehow have greater negative emissions than positive emissions, while still growing the global economy. idgi, how does this seem possible also, you can't use the energy from BECCS, that defeats the purpose I mean you could, but it would be hilariously short-sighted and inefficient...oh right Oooh, also, that puts airplanes and hungry people into direct competition for the fertilizer used, and land since idk that scooping algae up will be as economical for the energy companies as just doing it in the rainforest https://www.carbonbrief.org/negative-emissions-have-limited-potential-to-help-meet-climate-goals “We conclude that these technologies offer only limited realistic potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere and not at the scale envisaged in some climate scenarios.” Car Hater fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Right - and the 20th century average is how much above the pre-industrial average? I'm not sure offhand. I expect it's a very complicated question. It's certainly a lot less than the 1.06C you'd need to make 2016's +0.94C into +2C.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm not sure offhand. I expect it's a very complicated question. It's certainly a lot less than the 1.06C you'd need to make 2016's +0.94C into +2C. Also, I posted this in November 2016: This was prior to a lower anomaly in December which dragged down the yearly mean, though. The chart itself has when it was derived; I simply pasted the plots on it for a few of the most recent years at that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Decarbonization is austerity though. Jets are a great example because for air travel to be decarbonized (and for electric cars to be ubiquitous) battery technology has to have a "and then a miracle happened" moment. It's a fantasy to ignore the non-negotiable status of fossil emissions to our current mode of civilization, and particularly to the set of technologies built around the conversion of explosive liquids to rotary motion, so the only conclusion is that we would necessarily have to somehow have greater negative emissions than positive emissions, while still growing the global economy. idgi, how does this seem possible It's completely possible. Let's say we have 10Gt in residual emissions. That just means we need to get an additional 10Gt in negative emissions. How much would that cost? Depends. Let's say it's a $100/ton. That means it's $1 trillion a year, or 1% of global GDP. That's not an impossible amount of money to spend, even if it is a waste. With BECCS it might even be profitable. I'm not sure we'll do this, because people are loath to spend money, but there's no inherent reason it couldn't be. Also, once again, have no idea what you're talking about with BECCS. The electricity doesn't have carbon in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I wrote 'almost hit' not 'hit' back there. I think that graph overestimates the difference between pre-industrial and 20th-century averages. In fact I suspect doesn't really estimate them at all, and just arbitrarily decides they're the 20th-century average -1C. Here's what global temperatures have looked like over the past 1000 years:  That is, of course, the famous hockey stick graph. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I think that graph overestimates the difference between pre-industrial and 20th-century averages. In fact I suspect doesn't really estimate them at all, and just arbitrarily decides they're the 20th-century average -1C. Here's what global temperatures have looked like over the past 1000 years: The hockey stick graph is, of course, from 1999 but ranges much further back. I should point out I had changed "average" to "levels" in my post prior to your previous reply, though it appears you had already quoted it by that point. Oh, and 1961-1990 is a different base period than say 1981-2010, which is the base period where the average global temperature for 2016 was +0.94°C. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:You can take it up with the paper that chart is from, published in 2012 by Nature Climate Change. I'm not sure where they got that, maybe back-estimating using CCSM4. It's wrong, and far lower than any other estimate of pre-industrial temperature I can find. "We have already passed +1.5C warming and are nearly at +2C" is not a popular opinion in climate science. The debate right now is whether we can avoid +1.5C.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm not sure where they got that, maybe back-estimating using CCSM4. It's wrong, and far lower than any other estimate of pre-industrial temperature I can find. "We have already passed +1.5C warming and are nearly at +2C" is not a popular opinion in climate science. The debate right now is whether we can avoid +1.5C. It seems I made a mistake - 1981-2010 wasn't the base period for +0.94°C, but rather 1901-2000... which seems to be revised to +0.95°C while 1998 appears to have gone down from +0.66°C to +0.63°C: Year Anomaly°C #(higher=hotter) 1998 0.63°C 130 1999 0.44°C 118 2000 0.42°C 116 2001 0.54°C 122 2002 0.60°C 125 2003 0.61°C 128 2004 0.58°C 123 2005 0.65°C 132 2006 0.61°C 127 2007 0.61°C 126 2008 0.54°C 121 2009 0.63°C 131 2010 0.70°C 134 2011 0.58°C 124 2012 0.62°C 129 2013 0.67°C 133 2014 0.74°C 135 2015 0.91°C 136 2016 0.95°C 137 1998 is +0.63°C. 2016 is +0.95°C. Difference: +0.32°C peak temperature in 18 years. The different base periods also remain interesting, though... deviation from 20th century average above is as follows: 1901-2000: 0 1961-1990: +0.12°C 1981-2010: +0.43°C Difference: +0.31°C base period average in 20 years. Now, for the hockey stick graph - its base period is 1961-1990, and I'm going to assume that 1998 is the last temperature measured on the graph. Obviously this doesn't mesh very well with the offsets above, given that +0.63°C + 0.12°C is +0.75°C - but that looks a bit higher than the graph, doesn't it? The hockey stick graph is not global but Northern Hemisphere - and that's a bit different: Year Anomaly°C #(higher=hotter) 1998 0.68°C 127 1999 0.50°C 118 2000 0.48°C 117 2001 0.61°C 121 2002 0.65°C 123 2003 0.69°C 128 2004 0.66°C 124 2005 0.77°C 133 2006 0.71°C 130 2007 0.75°C 132 2008 0.64°C 122 2009 0.67°C 126 2010 0.82°C 134 2011 0.66°C 125 2012 0.70°C 129 2013 0.75°C 131 2014 0.86°C 135 2015 1.09°C 137 2016 1.13°C 138 1998 is +0.68°C. 2016 is +1.13°C. Difference: +0.45°C Northern Hemisphere peak temperature in 18 years. +0.68 looks about right on the hockey stick graph, but base periods also change a bit, deviating from 20th century average: 1901-2000: 0 1961-1990: +0.075°C 1981-2010: +0.443°C Difference: +0.368°C Northern Hemisphere base period average in 20 years. Adjusting it, +0.68°C + 0.075°C is +0.755°C, which is slightly further away than before. Perhaps it's not the full year of 1998, or there have been revisions since the hockey stick graph was made. Eyeballing the rest of the hockey stick graph, it looks to average to about -0.268°C (1000-1850) from the 1961-1990 base period. Adding 0.075°C offset puts it at -0.193°C from 20th century average. 1000-1900 is about -0.193°C. 2016 is +1.13°C. Difference: +1.323°C Northern Hemisphere anomaly from 1000-1900 The eyeballing it again, the coolest average period is 1650 to 1900, which averages to about -0.332 from the 1961-1990 base period. Adding 0.075°C offset puts it at -0.257°C from 20th century average. 1650-1900 is about -0.257°C. 2016 is +1.13°C. Difference: +1.387°C Northern Hemisphere anomaly from 1650-1900 These are big differences (aside from being eyeballing things), so I don't know that we can work back from the Northern Hemisphere to global - and I wouldn't generalize those estimates further back, since around 1000 was the MWP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Link to any of these estimates? Here is what the UN says. This is from their draft report on a 1.5C scenario.  This is what's actually happening. You're wrapped up in something you saw on the Arctic sea ice forums and it's distorting your brain. Listen to the UN.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 03:24
|
|