|
Well now we know how the sea drained away in Mad Max.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
If it's anything I learned from the Mars trilogy it's that geoengineering and terraforming always work
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
Direct carbon capture literally means nothing until we're already zero emission. Y'all grasping that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I can't wait till 2050 when exxon is running nuke plants in international waters to capture carbon and pump it back into ultra-deepwater wells to bring up their pressure and pump more oil out of them  https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/24/business/company-news-exxon-plans-sale-of-nuclear-unit.html My knowledge of history stops there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
call to action posted:Direct carbon capture literally means nothing until we're already zero emission. Y'all grasping that? The way I see it, there are some energy demands that are most efficiently filled by fossil fuels and that additional efficiency is worth more than the cost of carbon capture. The market currently does not recognize the cost of emissions but when it does (or is ideally regulated to be so), I think there will still be fossil energy consumption with CCS. Plus it's much easier to capture carbon from high concentration streams (like combustion flue gasses) than it is from the air. I could be wrong!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
I guess it depends if the carbon capture system, powered by the carbon emitting power plant, could capture as much carbon as the plant emitted, but the plant still produced surplus energy. Stated that way, it sounds like a perpetual motion machine. Genuinely curious if it's thermodynamically possible. e. Within realistic efficiency limits. Preen Dog fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
I think it's more realistic that the emissions generated during the process of refining liquid fuels are captured using renewable energy- basically big compressors compressing the CO2 into liquid form and pumping it under ground, with the compressors driven by solar/wind+storage. That still leaves the emissions generated by burning the liquid fuels which would have to be mitigated for via some other pathway. Perhaps scrubbing equivalent emissions out of the atmosphere. I don't mean to imply that liquid fuels can continue b.a.u. but I think there will still be liquid fuels in the future whose convenience/efficiency makes them worth still using after accounting for the cost of their emissions mitigations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
Someone pointed this out in the CSPAM doomsday economics thread... Giant African baobab trees die suddenly after thousands of years: Demise of nine out of 13 of the ancient landmarks linked to climate change by researchers. quote:Between 2005 and 2017, the researchers probed and dated “practically all known very large and potentially old” African baobabs – more than 60 individuals in all. Collating data on girth, height, wood volume and age, they noted the “unexpected and intriguing fact” that most of the very oldest and biggest trees died during the study period. All were in southern Africa – Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa, Botswana, and Zambia. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Someone pointed this out in the CSPAM doomsday economics thread... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQz008BGJ0Y
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Oh sorry I forgot I was in D&D's Pedantrystan. What I meant was that there isn't literally zero place for CCS, there is a infinitesimally small sliver of a place for it when and if we get to near-zero emissions, which will never happen. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I'm not, please explain. In that case (say Jet aircraft) it would make more sense to create "solar fuels", fuels derived from hydrogen produced from solar electricity (and wind for that matter).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1006944673976512512 Last chance to visit Miami cats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1006944673976512512 Pour one out for all the municipalities that thought their 1m tolerance sea barriers would do poo poo. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1006944673976512512 Good, it can't come soon enough!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1006944673976512512 Given that Florida's Governor made mentioning Climate Change a firing offense for state employees, I'd say that Alanis has a new verse to add.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Big glaciology drops, lotta bathroom reading this week. Good overview thread: https://twitter.com/LaurenceDyke/status/1006976355886620672
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
call to action posted:Direct carbon capture literally means nothing until we're already zero emission. Y'all grasping that? No. Before carbon sequestration gets us net-negative it's mitigation. After that it's drawdown. Reducing net carbon emissions is not "nothing". I don't really see the point of opposing CCS/NETs at this point. Last year Kevin Aderson and Glen Peters, (hardly techno-optimists), put out a widely-circulated report on CCS as a moral hazard, and they still concluded that we not only need to do it, we need to do a lot more of it, ASAP, because we might need it. I have no problem with people who want to emphasize the technical hurdles or the danger of allowing it to become an excuse to blow the carbon budget, but opposing it outright is pointless and spiteful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Leaked UN draft report warns of urgent need to cut global warming The article posted:“This IPCC report shows anyone drawing from published papers that there are big differences between 1.5 and 2 degrees warming in both natural and human systems,” Mainstream commentary is starting to hint that we're on track for well above 2C. Not toxxing over it, but I expect we'll see the IPCC itself start to admit the future looks more like 4C as a baseline by the early 2020s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Wakko posted:
I've tried to explain to people that if the climate scientists have erred, they have erred on the side of being too conservative on the eventual temperature rise and its consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Wakko posted:
The ever-growing evidence that even 2C warming is substantially worse than 1.5C is concerning, given that the 1.5C "carbon budget" is likely expended within a decade. Napkin math suggests implementing NETs on the scale needed to keep warming to 1.5C would be the most expensive single endeavor in history, at least a trillion USD per year to sustain ~5GT annual CO2 sequestration. I get the sense there was hope that 2C (or 3C) warming wouldn't be sooo bad compared to 1.5C but the consensus seems to be going the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
As has been shouted into the climate void of this thread numerous times, the ingredients needed to reach something like 4C are not materializing. 4C would require massive CO2 growth and/or high climate sensitivity, neither of which appear to be the case. If carbon growth is slowing and climate sensitivity estimates are getting lower, how is it that you think 4C could become a baseline? In other news, following on the strong El Nino a year or so ago, we may get a second El Nino, which could again spike temperatures in the near term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Arkane posted:As has been shouted into the climate void of this thread numerous times, the ingredients needed to reach something like 4C are not materializing. Hitting 4C is possible if the feedback loops release large amounts of CH4 into the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Hitting 4C is not only possible, but likely. The question is when. Probably not while we're alive, but the earth has historically been 10C+ hotter. It's certainly possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Is it alarmism when the alarmists are always right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Can't wait to get some cherrypicked analyses when I ask what on Earth leads one to believe that ECS estimates are being revised downward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Can't wait to get some cherrypicked analyses when I ask what on Earth leads one to believe that ECS estimates are being revised downward. Arkane posted:We've reigned in and lowered the bounds for climate sensitivity (again), and the high-end climate model will likely drop CO2 emissions projections as well due to the global deployment of renewables obliterating the IEA's projections together with the decarbonization we've seen across the globe, including specifically China. I'm skeptical we'll reach much higher than 600ppm, if that. Renewables and batteries (storage/electric cars) are getting too good, too quickly for those high-end carbon dioxide scenarios to be realistic anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Wakko posted:Mainstream commentary is starting to hint that we're on track for well above 2C. Not toxxing over it, but I expect we'll see the IPCC itself start to admit the future looks more like 4C as a baseline by the early 2020s. The IPCC has RCP8.5 as its "business as usual" scenario, which corresponds to 5C average warming. This is not some frank admission from a conservative IPCC, it's an acknowledgment of the plain fact (which no one at the IPCC has ever disputed) that current emission rates need to fall rapidly to hit a 2C target, let alone 1.5C.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I'm skeptical we'll reach much higher than 600ppm, if that. Renewables and batteries (storage/electric cars) are getting too good, too quickly for those high-end carbon dioxide scenarios to be realistic anymore. You're quoting a lot of studies that base estimates on observed warming, which tend to estimate lower ECS than model studies that project accelerated warming as longer-term feedbacks take effect, and lower still than paleoclimate studies which tend to show an even higher ECS than geophysical models. So I think R.I.M.'s prediction of cherry-picking is accurate. It's much better to say the range has been narrowed, to something like 2-4C, rather than that it's been revised downwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
trees
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Burn'em if you got'em.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The IPCC has RCP8.5 as its "business as usual" scenario, which corresponds to 5C average warming. This is not some frank admission from a conservative IPCC, it's an acknowledgment of the plain fact (which no one at the IPCC has ever disputed) that current emission rates need to fall rapidly to hit a 2C target, let alone 1.5C. That is not happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:RCP 8.5 is supposed to be the scenario made if all regulations on carbon emissions were dropped tomorrow - to 19th century standards. That’s not what RCP 8.5 was modeled to describe at all. RCP 8.5 describes a world where countries make Me-First choices, leading to increased coal use as global population rises. Trabisnikof posted:Here’s a more accurate description of the RCP 8.5 scenario:
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:*information* Here's another example from India for this: https://qz.com/1272394/cheap-solar-and-wind-energy-prices-are-killing-indias-coal-power-plants/?utm_source=reddit.com
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
If coal does get phased out by choice, then we'll start to see the true extent of warming we've baked in. Cooling sulfates fall out of the atmosphere within weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
We'd just replace them with our own sulfates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That’s not what RCP 8.5 was modeled to describe at all. RCP 8.5 describes a world where countries make Me-First choices, leading to increased coal use as global population rises. I honestly think you're confusing RCPs with SSPs, or more likely the deprecated SRES framework RCPs and SSPs were created to replace. There are no socioeconomic narratives attached to RCPs. What you're describing here sounds a whole lot like SSP3 and SRES A2, whereas RCP8.5 is really just about describing an emissions pathway that gets us to a radiative forcing of +8.5 W/m2, with the defining feature being that there's no emissions reduction target, ever. So the original comment by Grouchio is correct, and this is wrong. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jun 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:We'd just replace them with our own sulfates. Yeah, putting sulfates into the atmosphere is cheap and easy. And while people point out that it's dangerous, it's certainly not any more dangerous to do it deliberately and precisely than to do it accidentally and haphazardly (i.e. what we're doing right now).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:And while people point out that it's dangerous, it's certainly not any more dangerous to do it deliberately and precisely than to do it accidentally and haphazardly (i.e. what we're doing right now). From a geoengineering perspective. From a geopolitical perspective it's a loving nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:From a geoengineering perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Arkane posted:I'm skeptical we'll reach much higher than 600ppm, if that. Renewables and batteries (storage/electric cars) are getting too good, too quickly for those high-end carbon dioxide scenarios to be realistic anymore. I've been reading your posts for like 4 years, and you've managed to slide from believing in 0 degrees to posting studies in an attempt to cast doubt on four degrees. If I take as given that your belief in 2 degrees warming is in good faith, do you have any regrets about your previous positions which ended up being observably wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 18:41
|
|
