|
Arkane posted:So I initially didn't get this, but I think you are misreading status quo.
|
# ? May 16, 2018 19:29 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 12:30 |
|
i can't believe i made the mistake of an effortpost reply to arkane, i feel like i've been rickrolled and goatse'd in one and its all my fault because i knew better
|
# ? May 16, 2018 19:38 |
|
spf3million posted:So going forward, the cumulative emissions are going to increase linearly instead of exponentially? For cumulative values, it seems very likely it'll switch to linear growth in the near term, then logarithmic growth shortly after that. Decreases in the far future, maybe, although it's possible that people in the far future will not want to intervene in decreasing atmospheric CO2, because they like the fertilization of forests? Just a random speculation. StabbinHobo posted:i can't believe i made the mistake of an effortpost reply to arkane, i feel like i've been rickrolled and goatse'd in one and its all my fault because i knew better Well you did talk about peak oil and coal usage staying flat, so I can't say you have a firm grasp on energy supply & demand. You also said wind power would be 8% and solar 4% in 2050 when we're very near those numbers RIGHT NOW in the US (6 and 2). Guess I just had trouble grappling with someone who thought humans were going to make basically 0 progress on energy in the next 32 years.
|
# ? May 16, 2018 19:47 |
|
It's a sad day when the climate discourse has degraded so far that Arkane, erstwhile skeptic and current lukewarmer, is playing the role of the voice of reason.
|
# ? May 16, 2018 21:49 |
|
Erstwhile? Arkane very much maintains that even if the Earth is measurably warming, the impact is insignificant, and additionally our carbon emissions might be good for the environment.
|
# ? May 16, 2018 22:00 |
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Erstwhile? Arkane very much maintains that even if the Earth is measurably warming, the impact is insignificant, and additionally our carbon emissions might be good for the environment. That's a good description of lukewarmism.
|
# ? May 16, 2018 22:02 |
|
That's a made up term that nobody uses.
|
# ? May 16, 2018 22:59 |
|
All terms are made up and you just haven't heard of it yet, mainly because you don't read about climate and are generally an ignorant dunce.
|
# ? May 16, 2018 23:03 |
|
TL can you explain your assessment of the feasibility of the 2.0C pathways laid out by the IPCC, and more specifically how BECCS on a vast scale seems to be strictly required for nearly all of them?
|
# ? May 16, 2018 23:18 |
|
Papal Infallibility posted:TL can you explain your assessment of the feasibility of the 2.0C pathways laid out by the IPCC, and more specifically how BECCS on a vast scale seems to be strictly required for nearly all of them? I don't actually believe it's feasible. It might be, were the political will there, and you could convince governments to build nuclear on a mass scale a la France. We'll likely exceed 2C. That won't destroy the world though, it will just create more needless suffering, which we already have in spades.
|
# ? May 16, 2018 23:28 |
|
Arkane posted:Well you did talk about peak oil quote:You also said wind power would be 8% and solar 4% in 2050 when we're very near those numbers RIGHT NOW in the US (6 and 2). Guess I just had trouble grappling with someone who thought humans were going to make basically 0 progress on energy in the next 32 years. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 00:02 on May 17, 2018 |
# ? May 16, 2018 23:59 |
|
He's right, of course. Doomsters rely on nothing changing, even though it already is. I don't believe wind and solar will ever be capable of replacing fossil fuels, and will instead lock in a ton of natural gas, but we're not going to stop building them just because some people are very committed to seeing the world end.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 00:05 |
|
I just read 480-odd posts of people trying to argue with a pair of loud farts, and it was incredibly vacuous to say the least. This thread was much better when it was just people discussing the ramifications of the latest catastrophic science update, rather than trying to prod flatulence into developing sentient thought.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 01:11 |
|
Grrrr I'm angry. This thread was much better when it told me exactly what I wanted to hear rather than posting sources.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 01:13 |
|
It's like staring at Jupiter and wondering if the swirls are a natural process, or the dying sparks of some alien mind.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 01:20 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't actually believe it's feasible. It might be, were the political will there, and you could convince governments to build nuclear on a mass scale a la France. We'll likely exceed 2C. That won't destroy the world though, it will just create more needless suffering, which we already have in spades. So given that you are ostensibly arguing that RCP 8.5 is the most likely concentration pathway we will hit, can you elaborate on what you think the environment will be like around 2100? I’m assuming crop failures in developing countries and a significant reduction in marine life that’ll stress the ability to extract food from the ocean but I’m curious as to what you believe the human impact of that will be and/or how it would be mitigated.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 02:30 |
|
Papal Infallibility posted:So given that you are ostensibly arguing that RCP 8.5 is the most likely concentration pathway we will hit, can you elaborate on what you think the environment will be like around 2100? I’m assuming crop failures in developing countries and a significant reduction in marine life that’ll stress the ability to extract food from the ocean but I’m curious as to what you believe the human impact of that will be and/or how it would be mitigated. I don't believe we'll hit RCP 8.5. It's disputed that it's even possible to hit RCP 8.5. Here are a couple recent papers on that: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988317301226 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236114010254 I'm not really arguing for any climate scenario, but RCPs 4.5 and 6.0 are way more likely than 8.5. My understanding is that COP 25 is going to introduce a RCP 7.0 that more corresponds to a more likely "business as usual", meaning that current progress on decarbonization grinds to a halt fairly quickly and we start building a lot more coal plants.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 02:46 |
|
AceOfFlames posted:So where is a good place for me, a Portuguese citizen to escape to? I currently live in the Netherlands which will likely end up underwater and apparently most of Portugal will become desert. As mentioned earlier in this thread, most of Europe will become fascist so one single mention of my name will be enough to send me to a camp. What are my options? Im guessing you live somewhere in the Randstad? Then its easy: move 50-100 kilometers east and stay a few kilometers away from any major river. But Anywhere east of Apeldoorn should be save as its protected by the Veluwe, but to be extra save i would say move to the south of Limburg, Twente, Achterhoek or Drenthe. All close to Germany to so if poo poo hits the fan you can become a refugee and ask for asylum there! And no, you wont be send to a camp. Nobody, not even Geert Wilders, cares about people from Portugal. They are all seen as genuine European, so it's all a-ok.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 08:31 |
|
9-Volt Assault posted:And no, you wont be send to a camp. Nobody, not even Geert Wilders, cares about people from Portugal. They are all seen as genuine European, so it's all a-ok.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 09:49 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:He's right, of course. Doomsters rely on nothing changing, even though it already is. I don't believe wind and solar will ever be capable of replacing fossil fuels, and will instead lock in a ton of natural gas, but we're not going to stop building them just because some people are very committed to seeing the world end. I said wind would quadruple and solar would grow an order of magnitude, and somehow your broken stupid brain read that as "we're going to stop building them". StabbinHobo posted:- wind will continue its rapid growth, but that will still only move it from 2% of the total supply to like 8 Seriously what is wrong with you? What makes you yearn so hard for people to say things they're not saying that your brain has to edit it in to what you read when its not there? Like, either you lack middle school reading comprehension skills, or you are one of the most disingenuous assholes I've ever come across, and I've been a member of the Something Awful forums since 2002. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 14:13 on May 17, 2018 |
# ? May 17, 2018 14:06 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:I said wind would quadruple and solar would grow an order of magnitude, and somehow your broken stupid brain read that as "we're going to stop building them". You're vastly underestimating solar, though. Capacity has likely already exceeded 2% globally (1.8% at the start of the year), and it's growing at a staggering 40% annually (and has been since the turn of the century). Current trends holding, you'd see your 4% in 2019-2020. Currently six doublings away from all global capacity, at 40% growth it would reach that in 2030. That's the futurist take, and obviously very optimistic, but even fairly linear growth would have it dominating global energy production within a lifetime. Considering those numbers, 2% to 4% in 32 years and "will grow very fast" aren't really compatible. Ovenmaster fucked around with this message at 15:17 on May 17, 2018 |
# ? May 17, 2018 15:08 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:Seriously what is wrong with you? What makes you yearn so hard for people to say things they're not saying that your brain has to edit it in to what you read when its not there? Like, either you lack middle school reading comprehension skills, or you are one of the most disingenuous assholes I've ever come across, and I've been a member of the Something Awful forums since 2002. I mean, he's unironically agreeing with a guy linking from Wattsupwiththat, it should be pretty clear what his play is
|
# ? May 17, 2018 15:09 |
|
Ovenmaster posted:You're vastly underestimating solar, though. Capacity has likely already exceeded 2% globally (1.8% at the start of the year), and it's growing at a staggering 40% annually (and has been since the turn of the century). Current trends holding, you'd see your 4% in 2019-2020. Thank you, its nice to know there are still sane people reading. Can you source some of your numbers though? I don't believe current global electricity production by solar is anywhere near 1.8% today, but good grief would I be happy to be wrong. Maybe by nameplate capacity not consumption? Its surprisingly hard to find clear answers on this stuff, you wind up having to napkin-math back it out from a bunch of lobbyist and oil-co presentations. Also most stuff is 2011 or 2014 at best, so again if you got something I can read please share. edit: also remember solar (or wind) can grow very fast, but since the overall production/consumption pie is *also* growing their relative percentage won't climb as fast. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 16:05 on May 17, 2018 |
# ? May 17, 2018 15:59 |
|
Arkane posted:I suppose the basic point is that we're becoming wealthier and more advanced faster than we're feeling the ill effects of any impacts we are having on the climate. Carbon emissions are growing, but the global economy is growing much faster than carbon emissions, because we're decarbonizing. Your argument was it's unreasonable to predict standards of living will decline in future due to climate change. You supported this by pointing out global quality of life had improved over the past 30 years, despite moderate global warming, largely due to (fossil-fuel powered) economic development. The problem with your reasoning is obvious, climate change is a pernicious problem where the environmental consequences of extensive fossil-fuel usage only become significant decades later. Pointing to the last 30 years as proof we have no basis to worry about the future is completely unconvincing to anyone familiar with the issue. Ovenmaster posted:You're vastly underestimating solar, though. Capacity has likely already exceeded 2% globally (1.8% at the start of the year), and it's growing at a staggering 40% annually (and has been since the turn of the century). Current trends holding, you'd see your 4% in 2019-2020. The decline in price of solar power and corresponding growth in utilization is a development that makes me hopeful we might successfully decarbonize and avoid some of the worst possible outcomes from global warming. However the fact remains that AT PRESENT solar power is not suited for providing baseline electrical power generation. It is too intermittent and to fill the baseline power role requires significant storage capacity and/or long-range transmission infrastructure. Unless this infrastructure is built there is a limit to the amount of power generation capacity that solar can usefully provide. This infrastructure requires money to build, for example here is a nice summary of current levelized costs for different storage techs: Of course right now solar doesn't need to supply baseline power so it's current growth is objectively a good thing to the extent that it's displacing new natural gas/fossil fuel generation capacity. However at some point we actually need to fully decarbonize and it's hard to see how that happens using just renewable power unless the price of energy storage decreases significantly. Alternatively the political landscape might change to the extent that it's possible to build on the public dollar the necessary long-range power transmission capability to make renewable baseline power generation viable.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 16:14 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:Thank you, its nice to know there are still sane people reading. This wikipage says it's: quote:sufficient to supply 1.8 percent of the world's total electricity consumption. The real challenge for solar is storage, and it's going to have to overcome that hurdle to replace peaker plants (and to provide energy during nighttime) to make a real dent in co2 emissions.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 16:36 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:He's right, of course. Doomsters rely on nothing changing, even though it already is. I don't believe wind and solar will ever be capable of replacing fossil fuels, and will instead lock in a ton of natural gas, but we're not going to stop building them just because some people are very committed to seeing the world end. On the other hand, denialists look at current conditions and believe that our current levels of CO2 and temps are 'stable'. They also ignore feedback loops (methane hydrides etc.) that could create rapid change.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 17:54 |
|
Guys, guys. Allow me to inject some rationality into this debate: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mo-brooks-soil-rock-falling-ocean-sea-level-rise quote:“Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up,” Brooks said, according to the report. Climate Change: Soil or rock or whatever
|
# ? May 17, 2018 19:53 |
|
Ovenmaster posted:This wikipage says it's: yea sorry thats not what that means so i was not "vastly underestimating solar " like you said I was.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 20:01 |
|
Bitcoin may prove Jevens yet (absent regulation of course).
|
# ? May 17, 2018 20:21 |
|
As funny as that is, I don't think Jevons really applies since it's not like Bitcoin is filling excess capacity being created by efficiency. Bitcoin is just latching onto existing capacity and converting it into literally nothing.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 21:48 |
|
On the subject of bitcoin:Joule posted:Bitcoin's Growing Energy Problem Bitcoin is a rogue AI that's trying to kill us by accelerating global warming. Don't stare into the blockchain, it stares back.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:11 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:I said wind would quadruple and solar would grow an order of magnitude, and somehow your broken stupid brain read that as "we're going to stop building them". I never claimed you used that exact phrase. You just rely on magical thinking. The world has to end to please internet user "StabbinHobo" so wind and solar growth rates have to fall of a cliff for reasons that go unexplained.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:23 |
|
Nocturtle posted:On the subject of bitcoin: These are made-up numbers from charlatan Alex de Vries. The actual energy usage from bitcoin is maybe 5% of what he claims.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:25 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:These are made-up numbers from charlatan Alex de Vries. The actual energy usage from bitcoin is maybe 5% of what he claims. feel free to link the wattsupwiththat.com rebuttal going to bat for climate denialists, now for bitcoiners how low will TL go in his quest
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:27 |
|
Thug Lessons posted:These are made-up numbers from charlatan Alex de Vries. The actual energy usage from bitcoin is maybe 5% of what he claims. Really? Joule is a peer-reviewed journal and a sister journal of Cell. That's a pretty big claim that they punished made-up numbers. Cell Press is a great publisher, so it seems unlikely they'd completely whiff on publishing made up numbers. Do you have any other peer-reviewed studies that refute this one?
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:30 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really? Joule is a peer-reviewed journal and a sister journal of Cell. That's a pretty big claim that they punished made-up numbers. Cell Press is a great publisher, so it seems unlikely they'd completely whiff on publishing made up numbers. That a commentary, not an article. https://www.cell.com/joule/article-types quote:Description: Its just an opinion piece. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 17, 2018 |
# ? May 17, 2018 22:38 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:That a commentary, not an article. Ah, my bad, but still it would be nice to have a better source to the claim it was all made up. like this math seems pretty simple here: quote:With publicly available Bitcoin mining machines achieving advertised efficiencies of 0.098 joule per gigahash (Table 1), and the total Bitcoin network producing 26 quintillion hashes per second, we find that this lower bound should be around 2.55 GW.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:42 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ah, my bad, but still it would be nice to have a better source to the claim it was all made up. If its made up its because the bitcoiners are lying about how much energy they're using to mine bitcoins which is actually entirely possible because the first rule of bitcoin is everything is wrong. The most advanced ASICs are not publicly available so thats how you'd claim that the true power consumption is much lower than reported. Most of those are probably being produced for alt coins though.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:44 |
|
the math behind bitcoin and how much power things like ASICs use is pretty well known, it should be pretty trivial to give a decent estimate but TL seems to be convinced they are off by a factor of 20hobbesmaster posted:The most advanced ASICs are not publicly available so thats how you'd claim that the true power consumption is much lower than reported. Most of those are probably being produced for alt coins though. by a factor of 20x? I don't think there are secret computers being saved for bitcoin that reduce energy consumption by 20x over what's available to the public
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:45 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 12:30 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really? Joule is a peer-reviewed journal and a sister journal of Cell. That's a pretty big claim that they punished made-up numbers. Cell Press is a great publisher, so it seems unlikely they'd completely whiff on publishing made up numbers. Why on earth is this prestigious organ publishing a bitcoin blogger with no qualifications and uses clearly fallacious methods for his estimates? quote:Nomura noted that power used to mine bitcoin is estimated at 33.2 terawatt hours. That figure came from the bitcoin energy consumption index, which is updated daily on the cryptocurrency website Digiconomist. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/no-bitcoin-is-likely-not-going-to-consume-all-the-worlds-energy-in-2020.html I'm sorry, this whole thing is a scam cooked up by a 28-year-old nerd. There is no data to back it up and it relies on unscientific assumptions. Unfortunately I doubt it will die, because for some reason people like believing bitcoin uses far more energy than it actually does, so they will continue listening to this nerd rather than actual energy economists.
|
# ? May 17, 2018 22:46 |