Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »

Car Hater: May 7, 2007; wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

StabbinHobo posted:

yes yes yes we need to deal with meat but holy gently caress is it wierd how its everyones #1 go to example

START WITH CARS SOLVE CARS

In before someone points to the shipping emissions outweighing cars. (Limit that too, duh)

# ? Aug 18, 2018 20:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 00:07

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

Conspiratiorist posted:

And biology. And ecology.

You're trying to impose your moral values on some poor animal that wants nothing to do with you, just to satisfy your loving ego.

Managing and preserving Earth's ecosystems is a practical matter for the sake of our species well-being, and the best way is to stay the gently caress away from it when it comes to our frivolous pursuits.

Driving 6 hours to go try and gently caress with a wolf is the same kind of toxic behavior as the wealthy CEO who charters a flight to northern Canada to nab himself some polar bear pelts.

I can kinda see where you're coming from but your taking this position to dumb extremes. You're not going to get people interested in saving the planet by keeping them locked away from it. Why should anyone care about the animals if they don't ever see them? I don't think Avs was suggesting people go poke the Wolves. Merely pointing out that nothing is going to change if humanity remains committed to the idea that it is not part of nature and merely a watcher. Or in your case not even that as looking at the wolves makes them die or something?

# ? Aug 18, 2018 21:10

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

I don't think AR5 mentioned anything about Dances with Wolves

# ? Aug 18, 2018 21:41

Sundae: Dec 1, 2005

If I trap every person posting in this thread and bury all of us in an eco-friendly bunker miles below the earth's surface, does that count as carbon capture? What if I put a few hungry wolves in with us?

# ? Aug 18, 2018 22:47

Banana Man: Oct 2, 2015; mm time 2 gargle piss and shit

Sundae posted:

If I trap every person posting in this thread and bury all of us in an eco-friendly bunker miles below the earth's surface, does that count as carbon capture? What if I put a few hungry wolves in with us?

What if the wolves have babies

# ? Aug 18, 2018 23:13

Sundae: Dec 1, 2005

Banana Man posted:

What if the wolves have babies

That'd be irresponsible. :colbert:

# ? Aug 18, 2018 23:56

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

StabbinHobo posted:

yes yes yes we need to deal with meat but holy gently caress is it wierd how its everyones #1 go to example

START WITH CARS SOLVE CARS

Australia's science agency has done that. They've developed a method of converting hydrogen to ammonia and back, so that bulk hydrogen can be transported as fuel for hydrogen cell electric cars. Now it just need to be adopted everywhere.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/auto/2018/08/17/hydrogen-cars-csiro/

# ? Aug 19, 2018 01:42

this broken hill: Apr 10, 2018; by Lowtax

we're dancing now, the band is playing stardust
balloons and paper streamers floating down on us
She says to me "you have just one minute left to fall in love"
but it's in solemn moments such as these i place my trust
and all my faith to see
all my faith to see
all my faith to see

Her naked body

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Aug 19, 2018 02:07

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

starkebn posted:

Australia's science agency has done that. They've developed a method of converting hydrogen to ammonia and back, so that bulk hydrogen can be transported as fuel for hydrogen cell electric cars. Now it just need to be adopted everywhere.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/auto/2018/08/17/hydrogen-cars-csiro/

Something left out was that a metal membrane is used to extract hydrogen from liquid ammonia, which actually puts it close to on par with liquid fuels.

I'm not necessarily optimistic, but on this is an important breakthrough.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 02:39

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

oh come on its 2018 and we're still doing the "here's some article i read about hydrogen with nothing but vague quotes" thing

time is up, batteries are good enough. if they dont meet your range requirements, gently caress you, sprawl is part of the problem too.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 04:07

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

StabbinHobo posted:

oh come on its 2018 and we're still doing the "here's some article i read about hydrogen with nothing but vague quotes" thing

time is up, batteries are good enough. if they dont meet your range requirements, gently caress you, sprawl is part of the problem too.

Yep! And you can limit a lot of those wasteful trips to the grocery store via car by just walking or biking. I am putting together a bike trolley so I can get all my groceries home easier!

# ? Aug 19, 2018 05:04

Mazzagatti2Hotty: Jan 23, 2012; JON JONES APOLOGIST #3

Take all the subsidies away from the beef and fossil fuel industries, slap a big ole tax on gas powered vehicles, and use the revenue to heavily subsidize electric vehicles. Hammer it into people's heads that they can use the money they're no longer giving to BP to instead rent high fuel efficiency vehicles for long distance travel, or better yet take a train.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 06:46

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

StabbinHobo posted:

oh come on its 2018 and we're still doing the "here's some article i read about hydrogen with nothing but vague quotes" thing

time is up, batteries are good enough. if they dont meet your range requirements, gently caress you, sprawl is part of the problem too.

The Japanese are getting into it in a big way, so not sure what to tell you :shrug:

# ? Aug 19, 2018 09:44

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

this broken hill posted:

you are literally just a chimp that can count to fifty. any barriers between you and a wolf are just put there by society

To five. The rest are just smart ape tricks we can pull on our brain to seem smarter

# ? Aug 19, 2018 09:53

Surprise Giraffe: Apr 30, 2007; 1 Lunar Road
Moon crater
The Moon

StabbinHobo posted:

oh come on its 2018 and we're still doing the "here's some article i read about hydrogen with nothing but vague quotes" thing

time is up, batteries are good enough. if they dont meet your range requirements, gently caress you, sprawl is part of the problem too.

Batteries aren't really good enough though quite yet. Still not cheap enough, and not terribly green to produce I've heard. It's taking long enough for cheap everyday electric cars to appear that if hydrogen vehicles are cheap enough to produce there could be an opportunity, right?

# ? Aug 19, 2018 12:10

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

starkebn posted:

The Japanese are getting into it in a big way, so not sure what to tell you

you're not getting it, TIMES UP. continuing to play the "well if we just sit on our rear end and wait for a magic technology miracle" card is just loving denialism. especially when its just a couple of old companies putting out press releases from their r&d/concept-car poo poo and *no where loving near* economically viable.

Surprise Giraffe posted:

Batteries aren't really good enough though quite yet. Still not cheap enough, and not terribly green to produce I've heard. It's taking long enough for cheap everyday electric cars to appear that if hydrogen vehicles are cheap enough to produce there could be an opportunity, right?

first of all, they are GOOD ENOUGH. no they do not make 300 mile range products as cheap as gasoline does, but thats not *actually* a problem for 80% of even americans, and as I said the other 20% can go gently caress themselves. supporting their sprawling high energy intensity lifestyles should not be the rest of the systems problem to solve. this will not be a zero-compromise transition, there will be losers. rural americans having to suffer range anxiety is the absolute loving least of our concerns.

secondly, the "not terribly green" thing about batteries is just horseshit FUD spread by cranks through clickbait poo poo news. yes, like literally any other form of mining or resource extraction they're "bad", but the difference between the environmental damage done to produce a battery and the electricity it uses for 100k miles, and the environmental damage done producing enough gasoline to drive 100k miles is loving *at least* 10:1 worse for the gasoline. probably 100:1 if your local electric is low-coal. poo poo-picking about batteries not being green is just poisoning the well with dumb contrarian takes. do you have any idea how much oil is leaking in the niger delta RIGHT NOW?

third "there could be an opportunity right" ITS TOO loving LATE GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD WE'RE PAST THE WAITING FOR MAGIC BEANS PHASE

edit to be clearer and less yell-y: in 10 - 15 years we may have economically viable fuel cell based range extenders that a small percentage of car/light-truck users pay for to get more range, and a larger percentage of shipping/delivery trucks use. thats it. its got nothing to do at all with the fact that you should a.) sell all your cars and move to an apartment now b.) failing that buy an electric car and cover anything you can in solar and teach your children what a half assing coward you are and how it is their burden now to make up the difference

StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Aug 19, 2018

# ? Aug 19, 2018 13:14

Shibawanko: Feb 13, 2013

Galaxy brain: live in the countryside and only ride a bike

# ? Aug 19, 2018 14:24

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Shibawanko posted:

Galaxy brain: live in the countryside and only ride a bike

outlier rear end wierdos can do whatever, but even if you hit 0g/km on your personal to-and-fro we still cant have that be an even marginally popular form of land-use. you should live in an apartment and visit state parks. public transit should help you get your bike between them.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 14:52

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

this TED talk is only a couple of weeks old so its a good fresh-recap of the state of direct air capture negative emissions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY_lzonfE3I

listen to her numbers

keep in mind, thats a TED talk. she's on the optimistic/techno-solutioneering side of the spectrum.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 14:53

Shibawanko: Feb 13, 2013

StabbinHobo posted:

outlier rear end wierdos can do whatever, but even if you hit 0g/km on your personal to-and-fro we still cant have that be an even marginally popular form of land-use. you should live in an apartment and visit state parks. public transit should help you get your bike between them.

I was joking but in my country (Holland) this isn't such a strange idea, old people in the countryside get around nowadays on electric bikes and since you're never really far from a city and work you can live in the countryside without a car perfectly fine.

Whenever I visit most other countries, especially the countryside, I get annoyed at the lack of proper bike infrastructure. It's possible to make the countryside and inner cities more accessible in a carbon neutral way so you can still have big action radiuses without cars.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 15:14

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

loving low countries bike reactionaries, we do not have your specific combo of weather and geography enough places for your trite well-actually to matter

StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Aug 19, 2018

# ? Aug 19, 2018 15:28

Shibawanko: Feb 13, 2013

With an electric bike you almost don't have to pedal.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 15:30

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

StabbinHobo posted:

oh come on its 2018 and we're still doing the "here's some article i read about hydrogen with nothing but vague quotes" thing

time is up, batteries are good enough. if they dont meet your range requirements, gently caress you, sprawl is part of the problem too.

Batteries would be fine if not for the vast amount of electricity being produced via fossil fuel burning.

The hydrogen from ammonia is something else entirely. Oxygen from plants comes from splitting water during photosynthesis, and burning hydrogen would create water (and perhaps some nitrogen oxides), so it's much more balanced.

Granted, I too think it is far too late.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Aug 19, 2018

# ? Aug 19, 2018 15:53

Gully Foyle: Feb 29, 2008

Evil_Greven posted:

Batteries would be fine if not for the vast amount of electricity being produced via fossil fuel burning.

The hydrogen from ammonia is something else entirely. Oxygen from plants comes from splitting water during photosynthesis, and burning hydrogen would create water (and perhaps some nitrogen oxides), so it's much more balanced.

Here's a thing though: ammonia is largely made from fossil fuels.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 16:11

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=.8df3e2932f40

quote:

Michael E. Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. Susan Joy Hassol is the director of Climate Communication LLC. Tom Toles is the editorial cartoonist for The Post.

It is easy to understand why advocates for climate action have become somewhat dispirited in recent months. In the space of less than a year, we�ve seen the United States go from playing a leading role in international climate negotiations to now being the only nation in the world to renege on its commitment to the 2015 Paris climate accord.

It is in this environment of defeat and despair that we�ve witnessed a dramatic rise in the prominence of climate doomism � commentary that portrays climate change not just as a threat that requires an urgent response but also as an essentially lost cause, a hopeless fight. Some of the more egregious examples can be found among fringe characters such as ecologist Guy McPherson �a doomist cult hero who insists that exponential climate change likely will render human beings and all other species extinct within 10 years.

Such rhetoric is in many ways as pernicious as outright climate change denial, for it leads us down the same path of inaction. Whether climate change is a hoax (as President Trump has asserted) or beyond our control (as McPherson insists), there would obviously be no reason to cut carbon emissions.

Doomist narratives, albeit of a more nuanced and subtle variety, are now starting to appear in respected, mainstream venues, written by otherwise able and thoughtful journalists. In this vein comes a recent New York magazine article �The Uninhabitable Earth� by David Wallace-Wells.

It is important to be up front about the risks of unmitigated climate change, and it is critical to keep in mind the potential for unpleasant surprises and worst-case scenarios, the so-called fat tail of risk. It is, moreover, appropriate to criticize those who understate the risks. But there is also a danger in overstatement that presents the problem as unsolvable and future outcomes as inevitable.

The New York magazine article paints an overly bleak picture, arguing that climate change could render the Earth uninhabitable by the end of this century. Its opening story about the �flooding� of a seed vault in Norway leaves out that one of the vault�s creators told NPR �there was really no flood.� It exaggerates the near-term threat of climate �feedbacks� involving the release of frozen methane. It mischaracterizes one recent study as demonstrating that the globe is warming �more than twice as fast as scientists had thought,� when in fact the study in question simply showed that one dataset that had tended to show less warming than other datasets has now been brought in line with the others after some problems were corrected for. The warming of the globe is progressing as models predicted. And that is plenty bad enough.

The evidence that climate change is a serious challenge that we must tackle now is very clear. There is no need to overstate it, particularly when it feeds a paralyzing narrative of doom and hopelessness. Some seem to think that people need to be shocked and frightened to get them to engage with climate change. But research shows that the most motivating emotions are worry, interest and hope. Importantly, fear does not motivate, and appealing to it is often counter-productive as it tends to distance people from the problem, leading them to disengage, doubt and even dismiss it.

It is important to communicate both the threat and the opportunity in the climate challenge. Those paying attention are worried, and should be, but there are also reasons for hope. The active engagement of many cities, states and corporations, and the commitments of virtually every nation (minus one) is a very hopeful sign. The rapid movement in the global energy market towards cleaner options is another. Experts are laying out pathways to avoid disastrous levels of climate change and clearly expressing the urgency of action. There is still time to avoid the worst outcomes, if we act boldly now, not out of fear, but out of confidence that the future is largely in our hands.

Basically what I'm trying to say written by an atmospheric scientist instead of me.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 16:19

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Basically what I'm trying to say written by an atmospheric scientist instead of me.

Boy are you exceptionally bad at communicating then.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 16:43

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Gully Foyle posted:

Here's a thing though: ammonia is largely made from fossil fuels.

Ammonia is just NH3. It's been produced from loving vegetable oil and organic waste (even wastewater), though it's cheaper and easier to produce through fossil fuel refining (primarily natural gas) with some associated energy costs.

Those energy costs could be handled by renewables; one of the problems with renewables is getting the power from where it is generated to where it is used, and liquid fuels are a solution.

The problem with hydrogen has always been storage, and having a membrane that can convert ammonia to hydrogen on-the-fly is tremendous.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 16:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Evil_Greven posted:

Ammonia is just NH3. It's been produced from loving vegetable oil and organic waste (even wastewater), though it's cheaper and easier to produce through fossil fuel refining (primarily natural gas) with some associated energy costs.

Those energy costs could be handled by renewables; one of the problems with renewables is getting the power from where it is generated to where it is used, and liquid fuels are a solution.

The problem with hydrogen has always been storage, and having a membrane that can convert ammonia to hydrogen on-the-fly is tremendous.

The plan is to use the ammonia to store hydrogen for the purpose of running cars right? Is the proposal that we create enough vegetable oil that we then use renewable electricity to create ammonia to store hydrogen to run cars? How many times less efficient is that than just using renewable electricity to power batteries to run cars?

# ? Aug 19, 2018 17:05

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

The energy density of fossil fuel and ease of transportation is the really attractive aspect of it when compared with batteries. If it were possible somehow to create liquid hydrocarbon fuel in an efficient and carbon-neutral way, it would be far, far better than batteries.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 17:11

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

twodot posted:

The plan is to use the ammonia to store hydrogen for the purpose of running cars right? Is the proposal that we create enough vegetable oil that we then use renewable electricity to create ammonia to store hydrogen to run cars? How many times less efficient is that than just using renewable electricity to power batteries to run cars?

It's about the transport and density.

How much electricity is lost from generation to the point that it is transmitted to a battery?

# ? Aug 19, 2018 17:12

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

yea and if we could loving teleport with our minds that'd be super too

its like children with comic books

# ? Aug 19, 2018 17:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

PT6A posted:

The energy density of fossil fuel and ease of transportation is the really attractive aspect of it when compared with batteries. If it were possible somehow to create liquid hydrocarbon fuel in an efficient and carbon-neutral way, it would be far, far better than batteries.

Yes, if you can create an object that is more energy dense than a battery and as carbon-neutral and as easy to transport as a battery, you will have made a better thing than a battery.

Evil_Greven posted:

It's about the transport and density.

How much electricity is lost from generation to the point that it is transmitted to a battery?

Depends on the battery and how you are charging/discharging it, but let's call it 30%. What's the energy lost on the "create vegetable oil -> turn it into ammonia -> extract hydrogen from the ammonia -> run the hydrogen through a fuel cell" process?

twodot fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 19, 2018

# ? Aug 19, 2018 17:22

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

twodot posted:

Depends on the battery and how you are charging/discharging it, but let's call it 30%. What's the energy lost on the "create vegetable oil -> turn it into ammonia -> extract hydrogen from the ammonia -> run the hydrogen through a fuel cell" process?

Why is there vegetable oil here?

# ? Aug 19, 2018 17:53

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Why is there vegetable oil here?

Gully Foyle posted:

Here's a thing though: ammonia is largely made from fossil fuels.

Evil_Greven posted:

Ammonia is just NH3. It's been produced from loving vegetable oil and organic waste (even wastewater), though it's cheaper and easier to produce through fossil fuel refining (primarily natural gas) with some associated energy costs.

Why are you butting in a conversation you weren't a part of to ask dumbass questions when you still haven't explained how you prioritize policy decisions, given you have apparently rejected "cost efficiency" as a valid way to discuss policy?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Aug 19, 2018 17:58

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

twodot posted:

Yes, if you can create an object that is more energy dense than a battery and as carbon-neutral as a battery, you will have made a better thing than a battery.

Depends on the battery and how you are charging/discharging it, but let's call it 30%. What's the energy lost on the "create vegetable oil -> turn it into ammonia -> extract hydrogen from the ammonia -> run the hydrogen through a fuel cell" process?

That's pretty close to what this is.

Non-renewable power plants themselves lose something like 2/3 of energy from fuels in order to generate electricity, of which at least another 1/16 or so is lost in transmission (high voltage lines are actually very efficient; it's the step down to low voltage lines where it gets leaky). An undetermined amount of energy is lost on leaky household power to the battery. Batteries don't store AC, so it must be converted to DC, which is typically another 1/5.

This loss is mostly offset by the efficiency of electric motors, which might lose between 1/10 and 2/5, compared to internal combustion engines that lose between 3/4 and 4/5.

So, at the end they are rather similar in efficiency. However, batteries themselves are an issue. They're heavy, they don't get lighter as energy stored decreases, they are limited in energy storage, they are limited in storage cycles, and are currently not practical for aircraft.

Renewables plants losing energy is essentially irrelevant, but it currently makes up under 1/5 of U.S. electric grid production. A further 1/5 is from nuclear plants, which leaves over 3/5 from fossil fuels.

On the other hand, hydrogen stored in ammonia could be either burned in an internal combustion engine or used in a fuel cell. Fuel cells are technology we already have to generate electricity directly from hydrogen and oxygen, with typical loses between 2/5 and 3/5, and can then immediately power highly efficient electric motors.

Natural gas could still be used to produce ammonia, rather than burned for fuel as it currently is.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Aug 19, 2018

# ? Aug 19, 2018 18:01

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

twodot posted:

Why are you butting in a conversation you weren't a part of to ask dumbass questions when you still haven't explained how you prioritize policy decisions, given you have apparently rejected "cost efficiency" as a valid way to discuss policy?

They are clearly saying ammonia is a common chemical with many sources. It's like someone worrying where you could get carbon for some process and someone saying "carbon is everywhere, you could get carbon from a shoe" then someone taking that to figure out the efficacy of some sort of shoe supply chain to get carbon.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 18:08

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

They are clearly saying ammonia is a common chemical with many sources. It's like someone worrying where you could get carbon for some process and someone saying "carbon is everywhere, you could get carbon from a shoe" then someone taking that to figure out the efficacy of some sort of shoe supply chain to get carbon.

They literally posted in this thread like 10 minutes ago, so they could explain what they are saying if they thought I was interpreting their post incorrectly. Meanwhile you have still left the topic of "What metrics does Owlofcreamcheese think are good for evaluating policy given Owlofcreamcheese has rejected cost efficiency as a metric?" unresolved.

twodot fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Aug 19, 2018

# ? Aug 19, 2018 18:17

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

twodot posted:

They literally posted in this thread like 10 minutes ago, so they could explain what they are saying if they thought I was interpreting their post incorrectly. Meanwhile you have still left the topic of "What metrics does Owlofcreamcheese think are good for evaluating policy given Owlofcreamcheese has rejected cost efficiency as a metric?" unresolved.

OOCC interpreted it correctly. There are many sources of ammonia, such as those examples. The hard part is getting hydrogen, though it can be done rather efficiently from natural gas.

Hydrogen is indeed mostly from fossil fuels, but this is different than burning fossil fuels. The carbon emissions from steam reforming are easily captured, and are sold for other applications.

Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Aug 19, 2018

# ? Aug 19, 2018 18:32

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=.8df3e2932f40

Basically what I'm trying to say written by an atmospheric scientist instead of me.

The line between concern and fear comes up literally all the time in this thread, and the problem implicit in this discussion is that that line is usually going to be internal to a listener and not something that a speaker can necessarily address or deal with. For example, your posts in this thread lead me to believe that having to fly less is enough to induce fear-based paralysis in you. That's, uh, pretty unreasonable, so I have no idea how to communicate with you at all. Mann is arguing against narratives that say in no uncertain terms that climate change will be the end of civilization, not against suggestions that things may have to change for some people in rich countries.

I've actually posted a ton in this thread about the need for collective action over individual action, but part of that is selling to people the idea that collective (ie, political) action may lead to some changes in how they live their lives.

# ? Aug 19, 2018 18:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 00:07

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Evil_Greven posted:

OOOC interpreted it correctly. There are many sources of ammonia, such as those examples. The hard part is getting hydrogen, though it can be done rather efficiently from natural gas.

Hydrogen is indeed mostly from fossil fuels, but this is different than burning fossil fuels. The carbon emissions from steam reforming are easily captured, and are sold for other applications.

He reminds me of my denier dad who likes to point out that kayaks are made from oil so you liberal people concerned about climate change should be worried about the carbon footprint of your kayak!!!! Meanwhile driving my motorhome and my stupid Jeep and my big loving pointless truck all over the place is totally the same thing as your kayak so don't preach at me!

# ? Aug 19, 2018 18:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »