|
That’s good news that the carbon capture technology is getting cheaper. Not sure why the carbon rich product is immediately viewed as a fuel source though, wouldn’t that just put the carbon right back into the atmosphere? Hopefully in the coming years the price of the tech becomes even cheaper much the same way solar has become cheaper and more efficient.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:That’s good news that the carbon capture technology is getting cheaper. Not sure why the carbon rich product is immediately viewed as a fuel source though, wouldn’t that just put the carbon right back into the atmosphere? Indeed it would which is why this sort of thing in a vacuum should be considered carbon neutral at best and to be paired with sequestration technologies
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Well how so? Currently, you can barely get countries to agree we should maybe kinda pollute less. Now try getting them to agree to the intentional release of chemicals into the atmosphere in an effort to alter world-wide climate patterns, on the pinky promise that it's totes the best alternative even if, among other unwanted effects, it might unpredictably alter rainfall in certain regions and thoroughly tank their agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Currently, you can barely get countries to agree we should maybe kinda pollute less. If you're optimistic enough that we can get rid of coal plants, you should probably be optimistic enough to believe we can get some sort of agreement to replace existing fossil sulfate emissions with targeted stratospheric application, which if anything is likely to be less harmful than the current "benefit" we get from coal pollution. Again, we are already doing this, just in a completely haphazard and accidental way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
In that particular hypothetical sure, but coal plants could well disappear as non-targeted effect of market economics, and we're extremely likely to see a push towards sulfates regardless of the fossil fuel use situation. That'll be an interesting controversy to watch unfold in the next couple decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted: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. I mean, if you say you got 0 degrees from any my posts, then you're either trolling or you didn't actually read any of my posts...I have never posted nor implied that. What I have consistently said for as long as I can remember is that the computer models that project temperature far, far into the future are likely to be biased warm. I think reality has born that out to be a much more accepted viewpoint. The bleak alarmism that permeates this thread belies the fact that their position is becoming less tenable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Now here's a hot take from a swedish opinion piece, flying is good for the climate! https://asikt.dn.se/asikt/debatt/flyget-medverkar-indirekt-till-ett-battre-klimat/ You can google translate it if you don't speak ärans och hjältarnas språk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Now here's a hot take from a swedish opinion piece, flying is good for the climate!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I mean, if you say you got 0 degrees from any my posts In 2018, it turns out you can just claim anything. Or at least you can try.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 12:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:tl;dr: Without tourists flying in, countries would have to make up for the loss in GDP by increasing activities that are more climate intensive relative to productivity. Seems real dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I mean, if you say you got 0 degrees from any my posts Arkane posted:Anyway, I'm probably around 50% lukewarmist, 50% skeptic. I'd say there are serious flaws in climate reconstructions, but on the rest of the topics I'm fairly on board with everything. The climate models are obviously the biggest point of contention. When compared against observations, they've so far been trash, and alarmists ignore that, while the rest of the list embraces that discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Currently, you can barely get countries to agree we should maybe kinda pollute less. Can you even imagine the chem trails esc insanity that would create?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
I'm wondering how quickly the world is going to adopt the nazi death camps that america did overnight once climate refugees start really hitting the borders
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:I'm wondering how quickly the world is going to adopt the nazi death camps that america did overnight once climate refugees start really hitting the borders Anyway, the fact that "Seeking asylum has to be bad enough that most immigrants/refugees will seriously reconsider it " logic isn't a Trump invention, but seemingly a mainstream opinion among the political class of many countries, does speak to the likelihood of concentration camps being set up for climate refugees across a lot of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
They're at least not calling them death camps, yet, because there's no formal execution procedures. Tent cities in a hundred-degree desert in the summer for small children are likely to inevitably lead to fatalities, however, and to be frank, that's probably considered a feature rather than a bug among the people advocating for this poo poo. I don't exactly have beef with people referring to them as death camps given that's the direction those policies are headed (and that the Republican response is to use this as a bid for legalizing throwing small children in federal prison general population in a way that they can try to blame on the Democrats, in a nation with a famously lovely and mostly-privatized prison system). The fight against global warming is, ideally, a fight for justice, equality, and sane economies too. Intersectionality and all that. But yes, refugee concentration camps are already a thing in several developed nations, with Australia and the US in particular striving to be ahead of the human atrocity curve. Welcome. We've arrived.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
I have a beef with calling them nazi death camps because if your country is running nazi death camps it's time for violent revolt, full stop. Just like chuds calling abortion clinics death camps, if you really believe that's the case and you're just sitting around posting on the internet you're a tacit supporter of nazism yourself. Things can be real bad without being literally hitler all the time. We can acknowledge that internment camps for asylum seekers are a violation of human rights without clutching our pearls so hard we break our necks. That said, fairly off topic for the thread. Sooooo... Climate change to overtake land use as major threat to global biodiversity The article posted:Climate change will have a rapidly increasing effect on the structure of global ecological communities over the next few decades, with amphibians and reptiles being significantly more affected than birds and mammals, a new report by UCL finds. Just a reminder that we don't need to literally cook the Earth to the point where it's uninhabitable by humans, collapsing the food webs that surround us will make life very difficult a lot sooner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
On the bright side, as our ecosystems collapse many climate refugees will starve to death, so the problem partially fixes itself!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Wakko posted:I have a beef with calling them nazi death camps because if your country is running nazi death camps it's time for violent revolt, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
How about if I am violently revolting, does that help?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Wakko posted:Just a reminder that we don't need to literally cook the Earth to the point where it's uninhabitable by humans, collapsing the food webs that surround us will make life very difficult a lot sooner. I don't think this is true. It will do tremendous damage to biodiversity, which is bad enough, but is unlikely to effect human life dramatically. We've already done tremendous damage to the environment while prospering and there's no particular reason to believe that future extinctions are going to somehow end that prosperity. The UK, one of the richest countries on Earth, is 70% farmland and another 10% cities, meaning that most of its natural environment and the animals that once lived there have been bulldozed to build high-rises and raise crops. If amphibian and reptile biodiversity in the remaining 20% is reduced, that's tragic, but it's not going to "make life very difficult" for Britons any more than the previous centuries' worth of ecological damage did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Globally 👏 Synchronous 👏Crop 👏 Failures 👏 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/06/04/1718031115
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think this is true. It will do tremendous damage to biodiversity, which is bad enough, but is unlikely to effect human life dramatically. We've already done tremendous damage to the environment while prospering and there's no particular reason to believe that future extinctions are going to somehow end that prosperity. The UK, one of the richest countries on Earth, is 70% farmland and another 10% cities, meaning that most of its natural environment and the animals that once lived there have been bulldozed to build high-rises and raise crops. If amphibian and reptile biodiversity in the remaining 20% is reduced, that's tragic, but it's not going to "make life very difficult" for Britons any more than the previous centuries' worth of ecological damage did. It depends on your definition of 'dramatically'. Like, for most people, comfortably insulated by modern civilization as they are, all the death of the ocean means is slightly increased food prices. However, if you're in a poor region/country that depends on fisheries for subsistence then... It's the same for the effects of biome shifts or the die-off of pollinating insects for agriculture, or surge of invasive species + droughts killing off forests and creating the conditions for massive fires. Collapse of the food chain is a strain put on the general wealth/quality of life of the human species, and regionally it can have effects ranging from the bad to the catastrophic, but it's not something that by itself would force civilization into underground bunkers feeding off synthpaste and living in perpetual fear of the wasteland marauders. But it's not a good thing, and it'll only compound our numerous other issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't think this is true. It will do tremendous damage to biodiversity, which is bad enough, but is unlikely to effect human life dramatically. We've already done tremendous damage to the environment while prospering and there's no particular reason to believe that future extinctions are going to somehow end that prosperity. The UK, one of the richest countries on Earth, is 70% farmland and another 10% cities, meaning that most of its natural environment and the animals that once lived there have been bulldozed to build high-rises and raise crops. If amphibian and reptile biodiversity in the remaining 20% is reduced, that's tragic, but it's not going to "make life very difficult" for Britons any more than the previous centuries' worth of ecological damage did. To be clear, we're talking about global biodiversity here, not national or regional. The UK, and the west in general, benefit enormously from being able to raid biodiversity from around the world. We don't know what effect pulling out this chunk of Jenga blocks from the ecosystem tower will have, but we do know "studies have suggested that ecosystem function is substantially impaired where more than 20 per cent of species are lost". So this doesn't come down to just losing a few frogs. Let's put aside the risks of critical ecosystem collapse leading to cascades of extinctions. Biodiversity loss has increased progressively over the past century, bringing enormous opportunity costs. If you don't think losing out on future avenues of antibiotics research, species that support fisheries or having a backup for the next time Panama disease wipes out the global population of bananas will impact human life, I don't know what to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It depends on your definition of 'dramatically'. Like, for most people, comfortably insulated by modern civilization as they are, all the death of the ocean means is slightly increased food prices. However, if you're in a poor region/country that depends on fisheries for subsistence then... I definitely agree on that first bit. Poorer communities are much more vulnerable to this stuff because they're much more likely to be directly dependent on the local environment for their livelihood. The second part though seems to be putting together a lot of stuff that's not about biodiversity though. The only one that's directly tied to species extinction is pollinators, which is a legitimate problem but also one that's probably not as bad as people imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Yes, I shifted to more broadly speaking about climate change related effects: it's all bad, but it's not just the one thing that fucks us, is my point. Except sea level rise continuing to exceed predictions or a sudden halt of the thermohaline circulation, because either of those are going to be a real good time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Wakko posted:To be clear, we're talking about global biodiversity here, not national or regional. The UK, and the west in general, benefit enormously from being able to raid biodiversity from around the world. We don't know what effect pulling out this chunk of Jenga blocks from the ecosystem tower will have, but we do know "studies have suggested that ecosystem function is substantially impaired where more than 20 per cent of species are lost". So this doesn't come down to just losing a few frogs. I didn't say it would have no impact. Yes, declines in biodiversity will impact the biotech sector, loss of fisheries will effect the fishing sector, loss of coral reefs will effect the tourism sector, and so on. It's just that this will fail to translate into life becoming "very difficult". The world will be a little more empty and GDP growth may decline a bit, but overall most people will go on with their lives mostly as they had before. We have to get past imagining that the future of human society depends on biodiversity. It's more like the opposite, the future of biodiversity depends on the choices human society makes. Also, keep in mind that this is under an RCP8.5 scenario, the highest one of the four published by the IPCC. And I can tell you that under that scenario there are much, much bigger problems we'll be facing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:all the death of the ocean means is slightly increased food prices This thread is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
ubachung posted:This thread is ridiculous. I can't buy the latest plastic crap and feed beef to my 11 kids by worrying about dolphins. We've got to stick to the facts that matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It depends on your definition of 'dramatically'. Like, for most people, comfortably insulated by modern civilization as they are, all the death of the ocean means is slightly increased food prices. You do realize that most of our oxygen is generated in the oceans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Also, much of the world relies on seafood. Instability anywhere can get everywhere. See: Somali pirates affecting global shipping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:You do realize that most of our oxygen is generated in the oceans. Not a problem within a timespan that matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
GOP senators call for probe of federal grants on climate changequote:Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Rand Paul (Ky.), James Lankford (Okla.) and Jim Inhofe (Okla.) requested the probe in a letter Wednesday to the NSF inspector general, saying the grants are “not science – it is propagandizing," NBC News reported. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Like, for most people, comfortably insulated by modern civilization as they are, all the death of the ocean means is slightly increased food prices. thread title continues to deliver
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
The campaign to silence science continues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
Saw this in the trump thread, gave me a chuckle https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/617240387/oil-industry-copes-with-climate-impacts-as-permafrost-thaws quote:"To be honest, climate change is pretty good business for our company," says Ed Yarmak, who runs Arctic Foundations and gets about half his work from oil companies on the North Slope. "We're in the business of making things colder." Banana Man fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jun 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
US judge throws out climate change lawsuits against big oil Noting that the world has also benefited significantly from oil and other fossil fuel, Judge William Alsup said questions about how to balance the "worldwide positives of the energy" against its role in global warming "demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate." "The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case," he said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:US judge throws out climate change lawsuits against big oil You can sue the ''big'' companies to their death but it won't be a solution to a problem we all created.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
Orions Lord posted:You can sue the ''big'' companies to their death but it won't be a solution to a problem we all created. source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:US judge throws out climate change lawsuits against big oil "But your honor, my client did good stuff too!" "Hmm, case dismissed"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
"Well, we couldn't possibly remedy this here so we may as well not do anything. Did I mention we donated a few park benches to the public?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:12
|
|