|
Potato Salad posted:im gay The most environmentally friendly orientation
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Why is sulfur the go-to material for these theoretical geoengineering scenarios? Are there no alternatives? For example, white xerox copy paper... EDIT: Also once the poo poo is up there, is there any way to get it back down if there is some unforeseen cooling effect from somewhere else and now it's headed towards -4c instead of +4c? EDIT: Hmm I see there's some juicy quotes on this one very mild TED talk video about geoengineering: quote:"Global Dimming" effects the hydrological cycle of our earth. So weakening our earths water cycle. Reducing rainfall and threatening fresh water supplies. By spraying reflective particles in the air by planes in the form of chemtrails is infact going to kill millions of people, cause drought and starvation, melt the ice caps, damage our lungs, kill wildlife, make animals extinct and mess our earth up for good. Stop chemtrails NOW. They are murdering bastards. Wiki "Global Dimming" I am right quote:@dan32749 he's only describing what's been going on for years already: the global chemtrail operations...we have been sprayed massively over the last few years here in Switzerland, and I know it's going on all over the planet...and the zombies don's see it...oh well, one day it'll all lead to chaos, just like my late pal Heinz said it would (and that's as of 1990). We've been lied to, big time, but people don't want to hear the truth, cause it scares the living daylight out of them! quote:What a fast talking Charlton. We use hot houses that shoot Co2 into them to grow tomatoes. I have never heard of one person becoming ill or dying from Carbon in fact trees and nature flourishes from carbon.....I am stunned at the lack of education in the public. YES The earth is warming we cannot stop that - our contribution is but a blip on the radar. They are putting aluminum and barium over our skies daily, the military will not own this fact because they do not want to be responsible for the heavy metals poisoning we are suffering from. they are spending billions to do this instead of spending on remaking our society so when we arrive at this inevitable point we can survive the overwhelming changes... This snake oil salesman is on the side of the technocrats and globalist with one agenda put a 100 new taxes in place to steal more of our wealth... People please get a blood test for heavy metals and demand to have it explained over and over if necessary to see what levels you are at. I wonder if all of these new drugs that come out every day to treat all these new sicknesses are related to what they are putting in our skies. quote:Co2 does now cause the climate change we are experiencing, it has been disproved - It is the SUNS SOLAR CYCLES to which we are now going through a change period to another one, so unless you are going to fly up and spray the Sun, leave OUR world alone.... I wish people like this would fly a Chemtrailing plane and smash themselves into the Ocean... Do us all a favour. Infowars 1 - Globalists 0 Gortarius fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:Also once the poo poo is up there, is there any way to get it back down if there is some unforeseen cooling effect from somewhere else and now it's headed towards -4c instead of +4c? Sulfur dioxide comes back down on its own as acid rain. Seeding the air with sulfates is something that would have to be done continuously to maintain the cooling effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Basically we have to maintain the downsides of manufacturing without benefiting from the upsides, nbd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Sulfur is both an extremely practical solution (it does exactly what it has to) and an extremely unpractical solution (unpredictable negative externalities, in a potentially very bad way).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:Why is sulfur the go-to material for these theoretical geoengineering scenarios? Are there no alternatives? There are a lot of geoengineering possibilities; spreading sulfur aerosols around is probably the cheapest and easiest, which is probably why it gets talked about most. It comes down as acid rain, though, so yeah, definite downsides. As a knock-on effect, if people believe climate change is "solved" by a given geoengineering scheme, it might accidentally lead to inaction on carbon emissions that keep worsening the climate. Other ideas are:
Most of the ideas are massively outweighed by the much cheaper, less risky, and larger effect that would come from shutting down coal plants and replacing them with renewables or nuclear. Geoengineering, at least, the less stupid versions of it, might be useful after we've brought emissions down drastically. We would also want to study the hell out of whatever it is we plan to do so it doesn't bite us in the rear end with some unforseen consequence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Other ideas are: How would this work in practice? Like as far as equipment goes. I Imagine you'd need quite the ship to do this. Also while talking about ships (and this is somewhat offtopic), I know no one is going to do anything about the plastic islands because they are too far offshore for anyone to care, BUT is there any plausibility in having some ocean platforms ala oilrigs setup in there to act as a places where the plastic is hauled in for processing/burning? It probably takes a good 100 years to clean that poo poo up however you'd try to do it. I recently saw some borderline scam thing about some guy in the UK (I think?) developing a sort of a oil barrier knockoff that he claimed would gather up all the plastics in a matter of years. Ever since then I've wondered that, okay, you have the plastics gathered, now what? No one wants them and they are in the middle of an ocean. What is step two?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:How would this work in practice? Like as far as equipment goes. I Imagine you'd need quite the ship to do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm sorry, but this is radically untrue. You don't know what you're talking about and you should stop spreading misinformation. You're quoting a post that cites three studies, one about soil respiration, another about carbon (CH4) from plastics, and another about carbon emissions from thawing Arctic permafrost. The only one that quantifies the level of emissions is the permafrost survey, which estimates 47-57 GtC under either a 1.5C or a 2.0C scenario. This is a significant amount of carbon, but it is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. It's relevant for the carbon budget, (i.e., the amount we can emit and still stay "well below" 2.0C), but it is less than 10% of historical carbon emissions and about 5 years worth of emissions at current rates. As for the other two, they're not quantified at all, but likely to be quite low and ultimately irrelevant to atmospheric carbon content. But what about massive methane releases triggered by rising temps?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Iron-fertilizer in parts of the ocean. This tries to get plankton and stuff to grow more (iron often being the limiting nutrient for how large a population can get). Some rich idiot did this and I'm pretty sure it didn't work like they thought. Also this could severely gently caress up ocean ecosystems. I saw an article about this one. No obvious effects and it was done unscientifically so it's impossible to infer anything from it. Waste of time and money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Other ideas are:[list] Now this sounds dangerously stupid, I like it! Better idea though, how about sealing off active volcanoes, so that they slowly build up pressure until they go up like Krakatoa? That was one volcano, and he was enough to make the entire year lovely and the following winter a couple degrees colder. Seems to be a lot more effective and less radioactive then playing around with nukes. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:But what about massive methane releases triggered by rising temps? It's not happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I saw an article about this one. No obvious effects and it was done unscientifically so it's impossible to infer anything from it. Waste of time and money. Are you talking about Russ George? I've looked into this guy and he's an absolute crank. There's all sorts of pseudoscience on his web page up to and including cold fusion. That said, ocean fertilization is rather interesting and I hope they look into it further.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:How would this work in practice? Like as far as equipment goes. I Imagine you'd need quite the ship to do this. Some excerpts: quote:Doing so could be a short-term measure to offset global warming in a possible future emergency situation. In the meantime, it could also further understanding of the climate system....One of the biggest uncertainties in climate models is the clouds, which reflect sunlight in unpredictable ways....The proposal is now waiting on funding from government or private donors. For several years, UW researchers have been working with a group of engineers in California’s Bay Area to develop a nozzle that turns saltwater into tiny particles that could be sprayed high into the marine cloud layer.  Gortarius posted:Also while talking about ships (and this is somewhat offtopic), I know no one is going to do anything about the plastic islands because they are too far offshore for anyone to care, BUT is there any plausibility in having some ocean platforms ala oilrigs setup in there to act as a places where the plastic is hauled in for processing/burning? It probably takes a good 100 years to clean that poo poo up however you'd try to do it. I recently saw some borderline scam thing about some guy in the UK (I think?) developing a sort of a oil barrier knockoff that he claimed would gather up all the plastics in a matter of years. Ever since then I've wondered that, okay, you have the plastics gathered, now what? No one wants them and they are in the middle of an ocean. What is step two?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
The biggest problem with all solar geoengineering is that it doesn't actually take the carbon out of the atmosphere. So while you could potentially keep temperatures down, you'd have to keep doing it constantly or they'd almost immediately shoot back up, and in the meantime you'll still be suffering the effects of ocean acidification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:If your carbon pricing scheme is going to put air travel "completely out of reach of the average person" it's going to also put electricity, heating and air conditioning out of reach, and you might as well just throw it in the trash. Saying it's unrealistic is giving it too much credit. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Yes, any kind of reasonable carbon pricing scheme would price people out of emissions heavy electricity production. That's the whole point. If we aren't rapidly decarbonizing our electrical grid and also dealing with ground transportation then there's not really any point in worrying about air travel since we clearly have bigger problems. edit- like, seriously, I'm blown away by this post. You seem to be suggesting that it is somehow problematic that a carbon pricing scheme would promote decarbonization. The entire reason to have one is to force rapid adoption of non-emitting technologies. And yes, consumers would end up paying for it, but they wouldn't be priced out of electricity entirely. Similar alternatives don't exist for air travel. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Aug 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
Can't plastic be gathered and then compressed into transportable cubes and shipped to land or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:There are a lot of geoengineering possibilities; spreading sulfur aerosols around is probably the cheapest and easiest, which is probably why it gets talked about most. It comes down as acid rain, though, so yeah, definite downsides. As a knock-on effect, if people believe climate change is "solved" by a given geoengineering scheme, it might accidentally lead to inaction on carbon emissions that keep worsening the climate. Instead of nuking the Earth to create a dust cloud we should nuke the Moon in a controlled way to create a shielding ring of debris that blocks just enough sunlight to counter global warming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
I propose preemptive carbon sequestration where we take a portion of mined coal and bury it in a mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
We need to build metal gear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Can't plastic be gathered and then compressed into transportable cubes and shipped to land or something? Uranium Phoenix posted:.... They use ships to recover debris and bring it back to shore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Although to be honest, simply evacuating the entire South as well as everything west of Omaha and east of Reno would probably do wonders for America’s power consumption given that all these areas are actually improper for human habitation and if there’s one thing that chugs power it’s AC. Generally we'll use more energy to heat homes in cold environments than we do chilling homes in hot environments. But habituating in both are completely adaptable to a negative carbon society, especially with more efficient buildings. Now water access on the other hand...that's a different story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Yes, any kind of reasonable carbon pricing scheme would price people out of emissions heavy electricity production. That's the whole point. If we aren't rapidly decarbonizing our electrical grid and also dealing with ground transportation then there's not really any point in worrying about air travel since we clearly have bigger problems. Yes, part of the purpose of a carbon price is to get people to switch to low-carbon alternatives. But what that is supposed to have to do with putting air travel (and presumably anything else that emits carbon) "completely out of reach of the average person" I have no idea. Honestly, that is the sort of thing I'd say if I hated carbon prices and I wanted to smear them as something horrible. More to the point, what you're saying doesn't add up. A round-trip flight from New York to Paris might emit one ton of CO2e per passenger, so an ambitious carbon price of $150/ton would raise the price of the ticket. But these flights already cost hundreds of dollars. You'd need a ludicrous carbon price of $300-400/ton before even half of the price was taxes, and that still wouldn't be out of reach of the average person. So what carbon price are you actually talking about? Thousands of dollars a ton? Applied to everything that emits carbon? That's your policy? Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Aug 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
Pakistan is suffering a severe water crisis , and it is going to cause a lot of problems . A choice quote "A 2015 NASA study found that the Indus Basin aquifer, shared between India and Pakistan, is the second most overdrawn in the world, sinking the water tables at rates as high as three feet a year in Indian Punjab, one of the two states that produces 37 percent of India’s food. The situation is no different on the Pakistani side. Quetta is projected to run out of water by the middle of the century, or even before, if additional water resources are not mobilised. The situation in Karachi is even worse while Gwadar, the mainstay of our CPEC-driven future economy, is already without water." tldr: 200+ million people in a nuclear armed nation with belligerent neighbours facing imminent food and water shortages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Yes, any kind of reasonable carbon pricing scheme would price people out of emissions heavy electricity production. That's the whole point. If we aren't rapidly decarbonizing our electrical grid and also dealing with ground transportation then there's not really any point in worrying about air travel since we clearly have bigger problems. A round trip flight new york to california makes about 1 metric ton of carbon. But so does running a refrigerator for a year. So what price do you put that prices people out of flying but not out of refrigerator ownership?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A round trip flight new york to california makes about 1 metric ton of carbon. But so does running a refrigerator for a year. So what price do you put that prices people out of flying but not out of refrigerator ownership? Is your refrigerator running though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Although to be honest, simply evacuating the entire South as well as everything west of Omaha and east of Reno would probably do wonders for America’s power consumption given that all these areas are actually improper for human habitation and if there’s one thing that chugs power it’s AC. It would probably be simpler to start using new methods of construction so that houses naturally stay cooler than to move almost half of the population of the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A round trip flight new york to california makes about 1 metric ton of carbon. But so does running a refrigerator for a year. So what price do you put that prices people out of flying but not out of refrigerator ownership?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Terrible things that will happen if you try to lower your ecological impact: - eat healthier and feel better as a result - get in good physical shape and get sick less - less time spent driving - get to meet more local business owners and they'll probably give you free things - learn more about the local environment and natural attractions in your region - meet other people in advocacy groups that like to do things beside sadbrains internet shitposting It's really awful. Avoid at all costs unless incentivized by carbon taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A round trip flight new york to california makes about 1 metric ton of carbon. But so does running a refrigerator for a year. So what price do you put that prices people out of flying but not out of refrigerator ownership? This is as usual, an especially ignorant post. Because of course, the goal is to decarbonize the electricity grid (something we're already doing). While decarbonizing air traffic is still theoretical at best. Basically this: twodot posted:The same price that prices carbon based power plants out of existence, but doesn't magically make battery powered jets a thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is as usual, an especially ignorant post. Because of course, the goal is to decarbonize the electricity grid (something we're already doing). While decarbonizing air traffic is still theoretical at best. The point is that like a 20 dollar per ton carbon tax is unlikely to reduce air travel meaningfully, while like hundreds of dollars per ton might but that number applied to anything else is totally untenable for people to live their lives. And would be a nonstarter as a law among pretty much anyone even if someone thought it was a good idea. And like, there is probably not any coherent reason to like, tax airplanes totally disproportionate to the actual damage they cause out of spite or something by taxing the carbon they create higher than some other use of carbon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The point is that like a 20 dollar per ton carbon tax is unlikely to reduce air travel meaningfully, while like hundreds of dollars per ton might but that number applied to anything else is totally untenable for people to live their lives. And would be a nonstarter as a law among pretty much anyone even if someone thought it was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
There was a series on interesting articles I read today on aerial reforestation. They basically aerially bombard cones with saplings into the ground. It is pretty loving cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
spf3million posted:What if you announced a pre-determined ramp up in carbon pricing over, say, a 4 year period (or some other more appropriate timeframe). That gives electricity producers time to execute projects which enable lower emission generation but disincentivizes airlines to continue to invest in their future businesses. Sure, carbon taxes are a realistic goal for a thing that could help the environment. But you have to talk about them in terms that are fair and things anyone anywhere would accept unless you are just jerking off on how it would be in some fake global eco-dictatorship or something. Likewise if you get too cutesy about what they would and wouldn't apply to at some point you've drifted away from actually trying to propose a way to help the environment and are really just trying to punish people arbitrarily for things you decided you dislike. Like people keep proposing "eat less beef" as an answer, and every little bit helps so anyone that wants to do that should be free, but it also makes up like 5% of a person's carbon footprint, so a law really directed and severely cutting people's access to beef is a thing that would upset people a lot and no matter how successful it was would never significantly cut emissions. So you gotta decide if what is important is actual policy to help the environment or some like "gently caress you" to people for not suffering for the cause.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Personally apart from all that is quick and relatively easy to do, such as biking to work, eating little meat, sourcing renewable energy, I also donate a modest amount to Co2 compensation organisation's each month, which reduce my footprint to slightly negative. It's a small drop in the ocean but in case any of you goons are sad about it being hard to reduce your personal footprint, compensation is relatively cheap and very easy to do. There are multiple large organisation's that are certified as to whether they actually do something worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1026548215040987136quote:New feedback loops are still being discovered. A separate paper published in PNAS reveals that increased rainfall – a symptom of climate change in some regions - is making it harder for forest soils to trap greenhouse gases such as methane. This is stuff that's all been covered up-thread, but it helps to see the experts validate these concerns as serious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
This was posted in the Trump thread. Fun times: Hothouse Earth is an apocalyptic nightmare where the global average temperatures is 4 to 5 degrees Celsius higher
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1026654219699412993?s=19
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Alright at this point it’s probably more cathartic to figure out who exactly was responsible for all of this, my money is on lead-breathing white people
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:This was posted in the Trump thread. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:43
|
|
