|
You know how it goes, one moment you're spending one day in December putting up Christmas lights all excited about a lower electric bill, and the next you've accidentally spent twenty days in December putting up the twenty times as many lights on your house and you've saved nothing!
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
OhYeah posted:What else besides advancements in technology can help us solve global problems with the climate and the environment? Earth has went from a massive iceball to a blazing hot oven in the past without any "help" from us humans. We simply weren't around then. How do you propose to avoid these extreme scenarios in the distant future? Negotiate the American Way of Life(TM)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You know how it goes, one moment you're spending one day in December putting up Christmas lights all excited about a lower electric bill, and the next you've accidentally spent twenty days in December putting up the twenty times as many lights on your house and you've saved nothing! Seriously there any actual evidence of that actually happening? That seems like the most made up "actually nothing ever helps" sadbrain theory ever, LEDs are just legitimately better and even if you increased the number you use it seems near impossible to equal the energy use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:How long would it take carbon capture technology to actually have an impact? I just think of the sheer volume of CO2 released by humanity over quite a stretch and feel that's pretty difficult to offset expeditiously. The basic answer to your question is that any climate mitigation action will take decades to make an observable impact in terms of reduction in average global temperature rise, as the ocean takes a long time to warm up (which helped us in the 20th century) and a long time to cool down (which will be the problem in the 21st century on). Even if we decarbonized overnight and magicked away the excess atmospheric CO2 we'd still be dealing with elevated temperatures for several decades as the oceans takes time to cool down. A more realistic case depends how much carbon capture capacity is built but also critically the rate of decarbonization over the next few decades. The issue is that the longer/more the ocean is heated in the near term the longer it will elevate global temperatures. It's worth emphasizing the impact of carbon capture capacity in terms of temperature rise reduction is reduced the longer we take to decarbonize. In a slow decarbonization situation significantly more carbon capture capacity is needed to hold the global average temperature rise below a given level compared to a scenario with faster decarbonization. Here's one attempt to model this:  Very approximately adding an additional ~10 GT CO2 / year negative emission capacity reduces average global temperature rise in 2100 by ~0.5C for most short term emission reduction scenarios. Note this is ~25% of what we currently emit. Also note that no matter how fast we decarbonize we're not staying under 1.5C without implementing ~10GT CO2/year negative emissions. Correspondingly if we decarbonize too slowly than effectively no realistic amount of negative emissions allows us to stay under 2C, as the oceans have absorbed too much heat. This of course is just one study that isn't necessarily taking into account all the various positive feedbacks that may kick in as we explore new historically anomalous global temperatures. Very optimistically scalable carbon capture costs ~$500 GT CO2/year ($100 GT CO2/year is still science fiction territory), so having a reasonable chance of staying under 1.5C temperature rise requires spending $5 trillion per year. You're correct that our fossil fuel binge will be difficult to offset. It's quite the hole we've dug ourselves!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:What else besides advancements in technology can help us solve global problems with the climate and the environment? Actually using the technology we have. You could do everything doable about global warming using only 1970s technology; nuclear power plants, electric buses and trains , and cities sized to the available transport. Modern technology could probably do the same thing cheaper, and future technology might well be cheaper still. But you have to actually build and use it. A squadron of F51s will do a hell of a lot more to stop Hitler than a sketch diagram of a F15.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:What else besides advancements in technology can help us solve global problems with the climate and the environment? Earth has went from a massive iceball to a blazing hot oven in the past without any "help" from us humans. We simply weren't around then. How do you propose to avoid these extreme scenarios in the distant future? I don't have a solution for climate change on a geologic timescale my dude, sorry. I can tell you that climate change in this century is much more likely to be affected by not burning a trillion tons of fossil fuels than it will be by trying to invent a magic energy-and-cost-effective technology to suck that carbon back out of the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Im currently working on five acres myself for similar reasons. Early days yet, but getting there step by step. Drop me a PM sometime. I need someone to trade ideas with. The house I plan to build is an A-Frame. That way I can fit more solar panels on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Im currently working on five acres myself for similar reasons. Early days yet, but getting there step by step. Owns. mdemone posted:Did anybody ever figure out WTF is going on with bees? Nicotine-based pesticides (neonicotinoids) have been confirmed. In the past couple years, some large-scale studies confirmed it and the EU's already moved forward on bans. Article: EU agrees total ban on bee-harming pesticides Byline: The world’s most widely used insecticides will be banned from all fields within six months, to protect both wild and honeybees that are vital to crop pollination From: The Guardian Date: 2018 APR 27 quote:... Accretionist fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Aug 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Owns. The US will respond by mandating the use of neonicotinoids on all US farms. Take that, Europe!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
I randomly stumbled across this thread from a link in the ONI discussion. I skimmed the first couple pages, but.. has anyone talked about the fact that scientists believe the Earth was a lot warmer at periodic times in the past and it's just heating back up to a similar high and there's nothing humanity can do about it, and our contribution may be minuscule at best/worst? Edit: VVVVV Oxygen Not Included, sorry. It was in reference to plants dying in extreme heat. Ambaire fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Aug 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:I randomly stumbled across this thread from a link in the ONI discussion. ONI? (Look up why the planet was a lot warmer in the past, and compare it with present factors) Car Hater fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Aug 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:I randomly stumbled across this thread from a link in the ONI discussion. The Earth is warming up significantly faster than any of those times in the past, but yes the Earth's environment has been incompatible with human life in the past and will again in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:I randomly stumbled across this thread from a link in the ONI discussion. Sounds like a really good reason not to accelerate the process. It also sounds like a good reason to engage in carbon capture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
"Earth just does this, sorry son."
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:I randomly stumbled across this thread from a link in the ONI discussion. Humans are causing this warming. We know how much CO2 increases the temperature of the earth and we know how much Co2 we release. At the same time past hot temperatures give lower and upper bounds on what can happen. It was 8C hotter 55 million years ago briefly. Seemingly from run away effects of the natural heating that was happening at the time. a third of life in the oceans died. At the same time it puts a bullet in the head of the really weird fantasy theories this thread comes up with of literally all life on earth dying at 4C or that weird map where the whole earth is a desert except the rock shield of canada that are somehow farmland. We know what the effects are and aren't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
One thing I never understand is if you believe that it’s natural cycles then surely you would also believe that the current trajectory means we’ll hit greenhouse earth conditions (no icecaps) very very quickly and therefore we need to immediately make massive investment global geo engineering projects that consume a significant percentage of the world’s GDP? That scenario is more terrifying than it being man made!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:I randomly stumbled across this thread from a link in the ONI discussion. We have good reason to believe our contribution is a significant factor in the Earth's thermal balance given our analysis of atmospheric composition. We also know that our models based on paleoclimatic data fall apart as we go past previously recorded interglacial maximums. This is where we're currently headed. Even in the most (realistically) dismissive of anthropogenic contribution appraisals, the scenario we're looking at is that we were already heading out of the Quaternary and into a new geological era altogether... and we decided to step on that gas pedal, shifting a process from a thousand year scale to a centuries and decades scale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:I randomly stumbled across this thread from a link in the ONI discussion. One of the paper's co-authors is pretty explicit that we still can do something about it: https://twitter.com/DianaLiv/status/1026872283954966529
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
The Holocene likely being the last glacial cycle of the quarternary before we even add anthropogenic forcing should probably be a good motivator to minimize how much extra forcing we add. Also arguing about natural cycles without explaining how each one happened is real fuckin disingenuous. Maybe go look at how the first iceball Earth happened if you want to see the relevance of drawing down CO2 imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Did anybody ever figure out WTF is going on with bees?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:One of the paper's co-authors is pretty explicit that we still can do something about it: In another tweet she clarifies that "Yes that [exponential wind and solar power growth] is one of the social feedbacks bending the curve of emissions along with energy efficiency plus declining fertility/slowing population growth, increasing public awareness, better environmental governance at many levels, and reduced deforestation." Also, here's some supplementary information.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
So I am sketching out a plan for sustainably growing fruit trees and I am wondering if anyone has any ideas on how I can limit external water usage (i.e. well water/city water) through irrigation and land management. I get that I can use rain barrels, but I kind of want to keep as much water in the water table on my land as possible. So far I have an extensive mulching/composting plan to get rid of any red clay in the soil so my water retention rate will go up in times of drought and water scarcity, but I am looking for other ways of keeping my plants fed without taxing the water table or pumping water. I did design/build a neat thing to make sprinklers more efficient. It is basically a PVC pipe platform that raises the sprinkler up higher so the water doesn't get wasted in places you don't want it to go. I will add pictures to this post when I get home from work. As for garden water management, I am thinking about maybe using a large rain barrel fed by runoff from rain on the greenhouse and hooking it up to slow drip hoses to water my garden and greenhouse. I realize this might not be the best thread, but I feel climate change goes hand in hand with sustainable living discussions so eh... Edit: A neat goon project might be to buy up land and just plant trees on it and turn it into a nature preserve. Maybe plant shrubs to form a dick that can only be viewed from above. Depends on how many Eco-Goons there are around here on a dead gay internet forum.... friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Aug 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:So I am sketching out a plan for sustainably growing fruit trees and I am wondering if anyone has any ideas on how I can limit external water usage (i.e. well water/city water) through irrigation and land management. I get that I can use rain barrels, but I kind of want to keep as much water in the water table on my land as possible. So far I have an extensive mulching/composting plan to get rid of any red clay in the soil so my water retention rate will go up in times of drought and water scarcity, but I am looking for other ways of keeping my plants fed without taxing the water table or pumping water. Drip Irrigation works. I was at a water conference a few years ago and the drip irrigation folks told me they couldn't sell products to the California almond folks because they were just pumping their water and not paying for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:So I am sketching out a plan for sustainably growing fruit trees and I am wondering if anyone has any ideas on how I can limit external water usage (i.e. well water/city water) through irrigation and land management. I get that I can use rain barrels, but I kind of want to keep as much water in the water table on my land as possible. So far I have an extensive mulching/composting plan to get rid of any red clay in the soil so my water retention rate will go up in times of drought and water scarcity, but I am looking for other ways of keeping my plants fed without taxing the water table or pumping water. I would think the answer is that if it's a kind of fruit tree that can't grow in the local climate without frequent external watering that you just wouldn't pick to grow that tree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3826121&pagenumber=662&perpage=40#post486892996 Isn't container shipping one of/the biggest global polluters? How many airline flights or vehicle miles is this stupidity worth? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:So I am sketching out a plan for sustainably growing fruit trees VideoGameVet posted:Drip Irrigation works. I was at a water conference a few years ago and the drip irrigation folks told me they couldn't sell products to the California almond folks because they were just pumping their water and not paying for it. I don't know about 'sustainably', but I can attest that drip irrigation is a legit thing. I grew up on a ranch and we had at least 20+ fruit trees (peaches, apricots, persimmons, nectarines, mostly peaches though, my mother made so much jam and preserves and cobbler and sweets) and we used solely drip irrigation, for about 8 years. I think we had two quarter inch OD feeders per tree. Goddamn.. just remembering how we did it, feels like a different lifetime now. 4 separate water lines and filters for the well water and loving solenoids with a timer board to turn the lines on and off... The trees are all dead and gone now, though.. due to things that happened, my father lost interest in them and moved on to other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
is there a thread for planting stuff/weather proofing houses/composting/greenhouse building etc.etc.? I.think a thread dealing.with the intersection of adaptation to climate change and homeownership could be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:is there a thread for planting stuff/weather proofing houses/composting/greenhouse building etc.etc.? DIY is probably the best forum for that. If there's no thread on it there, you could always start one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:What is this stuff I keep hearing about CO2 having a saturation point so actually it totally doesn't trap heat anymore? See Venus, which is hotter at the surface than Mercury, but has an atmosphere which is cool enough to freeze CO2 at some altitudes. Neither is the case for Earth. What CO2 does is redistribute energy in the atmosphere. The whole of Earth's atmosphere is about 255K, which is how warm the atmosphere would be due to solar radiation when factoring in albedo. However, it's much warmer at the surface and cooler or much cooler in other parts of the atmosphere. The temperature curve is not uniformly cooler as height increases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:One thing I never understand is if you believe that it’s natural cycles then surely you would also believe that the current trajectory means we’ll hit greenhouse earth conditions (no icecaps) very very quickly and therefore we need to immediately make massive investment global geo engineering projects that consume a significant percentage of the world’s GDP? The new talking point is that warming is good for us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:So I am sketching out a plan for sustainably growing fruit trees and I am wondering if anyone has any ideas on how I can limit external water usage (i.e. well water/city water) through irrigation and land management. I get that I can use rain barrels, but I kind of want to keep as much water in the water table on my land as possible. So far I have an extensive mulching/composting plan to get rid of any red clay in the soil so my water retention rate will go up in times of drought and water scarcity, but I am looking for other ways of keeping my plants fed without taxing the water table or pumping water. My farther in law always gets angry when I give my plants water. The trick is to isolate the top of the ground. He does that by simple weeding the top of the ground. Don't give the plants to much water so the roots will go deep otherwise they will go wide. New plants need water of course but after several years they should be able to sustain some form of drought. Also plant daffodils next to your fruit trees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 11:20
|
|
|
Orions Lord posted:My farther in law always gets angry when I give my plants water. Why daffodils? My mom has a bunch of fruit trees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 11:32
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Why daffodils? My mom has a bunch of fruit trees. Yeah, I was wondering thevsame thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
They suppress some plants and grasses. Also some animals. And look good... Tagetes are useful against nematodes and come back every year. Tropaeolum minus is a great plant and you can eat the flowers also comes back. Symphytum uplandicum for mulch and a lot more No need to give them water or so (if you don't live in the dessert). There so much you can do... Orions Lord fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
Okay, that is really cool. I am going to add that to the OP in the Green Homebuilding thread I made in DIY.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Orions Lord posted:They suppress some plants and grasses. Also some animals. companion cropping / intercropping is real, and strong, and our friend you can look up your local floral community and create lil ecosystems in and around whatever it is you're harvesting or eating. then you get the bees. then you get the honey. then you get the power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
when billionaires build remote compounds for the collapse its bad but when upper middle class people call it permacutlure its good
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Here's an interesting article related to the recent reforestation and negative emission discussion. It also has a relatively accessible summary of how BECCS is proposed to mitigate climate change:Nature posted:Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets  The scale of the proposed BECCS capacity is crazy, only a couple of subcontinents worth of intensive agriculture.  Ooops! The science daily article is also good: Science Daily posted:Forests crucial for limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees I'm not suggesting this is the last word on BECCS moreso to point out the irresponsibility of relying on unproven negative emissions techs to mitigate future climate change. BECCS is probably the most serious candidate tech at present in that it exists and in principle can scale. However on closer examination widescale implemention may be far more constrained than previously believed. Depending on negative emissions tech to reach the Paris' conference "aspirational" goal of 1.5C max temp rise indicates a level of confidence that is not warranted and suggests the situation is not so dire. The potential of afforestation/reforestation is positive. A problem I see is that there's no money to be made, at least with BECCS there's a potential profit motive incentivizing adoption from selling energy. Who's going to pay for a reforestation effort large enough to sequester ~1GT C/year?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:One of the paper's co-authors is pretty explicit that we still can do something about it: So she's saying everything is going to be fine or what
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
actionjackson posted:So she's saying everything is going to be fine or what The media narrative is that climate change is an inevitability (and they sensationalize it for ratings). When they imply that, people think "So if it's going to happen, why do anything?" This causes inaction, which will only make climate change increasingly worse. Her point is that the degree of climate change we get is a political choice, and if enough people in our society act on it, we can significantly reduce the impact of climate change on the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 21:57
|
|
