|
Paradoxish posted:This thread or maybe some other D&D thread has seemed really, really aggressively anti-garden, with the arguments generally being more about the practical time commitment required. I'm with you, though. My girlfriend and I decided to start gardening a few years ago and... it's not actually a lot of work? At this point we grow a sizable portion of the produce we eat and I'd be hard pressed to say that we average even a combined two hours per week on gardening work. And that's including the larger amounts of time spent planting and harvesting. For most of the season there's hardly anything to do at all. Like community gardens are fine, it's just that they produce a marginal amount of food (particularly from a calorie perspective) for a fuckton of effort. I wouldn't be surprised if many people end up burning more calories from the gardening than they actually get out. Producing a lot of stuff for little effort is just not a normal thing in gardening, so you are experiencing a combination of a huge amount of luck (no disease / bugs), live in a climate conducive to it (most people don't), have a good amount of space (most people don't), a large amount of planning and knowledge, and are greatly underestimating the amount of work involved (people do this for hobbies they enjoy). You also have a partner that enjoys it, which makes the overall activity much more enjoyable and a lot easier. Basically it's a nice hobby for middle/upper class people, I don't think many people working 3 jobs are thrilled by the concept, and can easily have their entire effort wasted because they just got too busy to water everything one day or deal with an insect invasion. Climate change makes it all worse, of course, because you need to deal with huge swings in temperature and things like frosts in the middle of summer following by 110 degree heat waves. Or additional pests and disease. How are u posted:There's some small satisfaction in being right, and to the absurdity that's put us into this situation. Also, humans have always been drawn to apocalyptic poo poo. What put us into this situation is just massive population growth, a literal seven fold increase in the timeframe .00000001% of humans existence, full stop. The absurdity is in the idea that this is some easy problem to solve when in reality the complexities involved make this problem orders of magnitude more complicated than literally any other issues humanity has faced. Like picture a thousand d-days and you'll have something approaching the complexity and international coordination required in stopping CC. It's like a train. Just because you can see the problem, that a car is stuck on the tracks miles ahead, does not mean that you can stop the train in time. What most people suggest here as the "fix" would require someone to have levels of dictatorial control over the entire planet that exceeds what the most powerful people in history had. It would make Stalins look like Jimmy Carter. Or rather John Taylor.
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 17:35 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:24 |
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:tbh it's really just basic confirmation bias in terms of what literature people choose to consume and propagate. there's never really any substantial discussion on the articles just AAAAAAAH ITS BAD. You are right, the temptation of instant gratification that comes from immediately declaring "told you so" isn't very productive. TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Like community gardens are fine, it's just that they produce a marginal amount of food (particularly from a calorie perspective) for a fuckton of effort. I wouldn't be surprised if many people end up burning more calories from the gardening than they actually get out. Producing a lot of stuff for little effort is just not a normal thing in gardening, so you are experiencing a combination of a huge amount of luck (no disease / bugs), live in a climate conducive to it (most people don't), have a good amount of space (most people don't), a large amount of planning and knowledge, and are greatly underestimating the amount of work involved (people do this for hobbies they enjoy). You also have a partner that enjoys it, which makes the overall activity much more enjoyable and a lot easier. Basically it's a nice hobby for middle/upper class people, I don't think many people working 3 jobs are thrilled by the concept, and can easily have their entire effort wasted because they just got too busy to water everything one day or deal with an insect invasion. Good soil is the key, if you have good soil you just have to plant stuff and water it to get a bountiful harvest. Shifty Nipples fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Aug 31, 2018 |
# ? Aug 31, 2018 17:47 |
|
friendbot2000 posted:Why are the wildfires a bad thing? Genuinely asking because I know that in California a lot of redwood species can't drop their seeds without fires so wildfires equal good thing for forests. these wildfires are so severe that they're scorching the land completely, making it impossible for anything to grow
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 17:49 |
|
friendbot2000 posted:Why are the wildfires a bad thing? Genuinely asking because I know that in California a lot of redwood species can't drop their seeds without fires so wildfires equal good thing for forests. I've been idly wondering this myself. Relevant factors to the west-coast wildfires are the impact of climate change, extra brush accumulation due to past fire-fighting efforts and the fact the entire ecosystem is adapted around burning down every couple of decades. I'm sure climate change is having a major impact via increased temperatures, but is there evidence that these current wildfires are historically anomalous ie larger compared to time periods before people started suppressing wildfires to protect property? My random googling found this: PNAS posted:Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA Also given the important role that fires play in west coast forests it's clear forest-fire fighting needs to stop entirely. It's just ignorant interference in yet another ecosystem, and making the fires even more extreme by allowing extra brush to accumulate over time that normally would have been regularly cleared out. I don't expect this to happen because protecting private property is society's main concern. edit: ^^^^^ so you're suggesting that the intensity of the recent blazes is much higher than what the ecosystem is adapted to and we should not expect normal regrowth? Do you have a link?
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 17:58 |
|
friendbot2000 posted:Why are the wildfires a bad thing? Genuinely asking because I know that in California a lot of redwood species can't drop their seeds without fires so wildfires equal good thing for forests. I'm not too familiar with the local BC ecology but typically you want a steady burn rate to maintain the fire ecology. Complete burns over larger regions essentially set the whole area back to square 1 where you have to start over with shade intolerant brush and build back up from there. If too much area burns or areas burn too frequently then the successional forest ecosystem never has time to recover. Fire is definitely a critical part of forest biomes, but like most other things adapting to it is a battle of rates. If we're seeing mid-century level burn rates already then the biome there is likely at risk.
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 17:59 |
|
Oxxidation posted:these wildfires are so severe that they're scorching the land completely, making it impossible for anything to grow
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 18:00 |
|
Nocturtle posted:edit: ^^^^^ so you're suggesting that the intensity of the recent blazes is much higher than what the ecosystem is adapted to and we should not expect normal regrowth? Do you have a link? it was from a naomi klein article circa 2016-2017 that described society's attitudes toward climate change as "sleepwalking towards the apocalypse," i don't remember any more than that
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 18:01 |
We basically need boats carrying mass kelp farms, absorbing carbon on long rear end trips to deep ocean. I don't actually know the physics maybe there are intake hotspots? Then we gotta haul the kelp to be sequestered some place. And that would probably incur too much carbon to do it, but maybe it's doable going green powered?
|
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 19:27 |
|
vorebane posted:We basically need boats carrying mass kelp farms, absorbing carbon on long rear end trips to deep ocean. I don't actually know the physics maybe there are intake hotspots? Then we gotta haul the kelp to be sequestered some place. And that would probably incur too much carbon to do it, but maybe it's doable going green powered? speedrun the azolla event
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 19:44 |
|
Educating the mass and politicians about safe carbon free nuclear energy is the number one thing any of us can do to fight climate change. The only hurdles are social/political and all the science is on one side.
|
# ? Aug 31, 2018 20:57 |
Notorious R.I.M. posted:speedrun the azolla event the Japanese are using nets to apparently double production surface, so mass dumbasses could potentially put a dent in it. Fighting ocean carbonification, I think acidification would be a plus. I forget how near hothouse the current trajectory the thread said we were at. I agree we need nuclear power.
|
|
# ? Sep 1, 2018 03:09 |
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:It would make Stalins look like Jimmy Carter. Or rather John Taylor.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2018 03:33 |
|
this broken hill posted:this thread makes stalin look like james taylor Stalin only dreamed of achieving the kind of bodycount I yearn for.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2018 04:08 |
|
Rime posted:British Columbia is burning at rates which were not forecast to hit until 2050, largely driven by a weakening jetstream as the arctic melts. I don't think a lot of people understand the reality until it hits them. The BC fires are so devastating that Seattle, hundreds of miles away, was having a very bad time. I had headaches, my eyes watered, kept coughing, the sky was orange, people started wearing masks and getting pissy, and it only lasted for for a week and a half and this is in the most passive city on the planet. People are going to go loving nuts when climate change actually starts effecting them.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2018 08:12 |
|
paradex posted:I don't think a lot of people understand the reality until it hits them. The BC fires are so devastating that Seattle, hundreds of miles away, was having a very bad time. I had headaches, my eyes watered, kept coughing, the sky was orange, people started wearing masks and getting pissy, and it only lasted for for a week and a half and this is in the most passive city on the planet. Likely doesn't help that there is a fire west of Seattle and several others east of the cascades in Washington. All of the U.S. states on the west side of the Rocky Mountains are on fire. Shifty Nipples fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 1, 2018 |
# ? Sep 1, 2018 17:29 |
|
Burt Buckle posted:Sometimes I get this feeling that you guys enjoy seeing articles that suggest things are worse than previously thought.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2018 18:32 |
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:What other articles are being produced these days I’ve seen quite a few about carbon capture tech recently. Hopefully it continues to decrease in cost at the same rate that solar has.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2018 18:41 |
|
Rime posted:Stalin only dreamed of achieving the kind of bodycount I yearn for. you gotta figure the bodycount in a 3C future will be larger than WW2, just spread over 50 years instead of 5.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2018 20:16 |
|
A recent paper "The point of no return for climate action: effects of climate uncertainty and risk tolerance" does a good job showing the urgent need to start decarbonizing ASAP and the relatively limited impact of negative emissions tech. It presents a stochastic model tuned to existing CMIP5 simulations, allowing it to relate CO2 emissions over time to global mean surface temperature increase out to 2100. The stochastic model includes noise terms to reproduce the variance in temperature increase seen in a representative ensemble of CMIP5 simulations, allowing evaluation of warming probabilities for various carbon emission scenarios. In particular it derives "points of no return" (PNRs), the latest possible year we can start decarbonizing (assuming either 20 or 50 year decarbonization plans) and still meet a given end of century target maximum temperature increase (1.5K or 2K). Critically it derives PNRs for different levels of accepted risk ie decarbonization has to start much sooner to have a 95% probability of staying under 2K by 2100 compared to only a 50% probability. It also evaluates the impact of a major negative emissions effort that starts ramping up in 2061 to eventually sequester 4.21 GtC per year (IMO that's pretty optimistic). Here's the money plot: Some key results: -it's too late to have a 95% probability of staying under 1.5K by 2100 assuming a 50-year decarbonization plan. -having a 95% chance to stay under 1.5K requires a much more ambitious (unrealistic) 20 year decarbonization plan AND the massive negative emissions effort -the most "realistic" mitigation plan ie decarbonizing over 50 years, no crazy negative emissions effort has to begin exactly NOW (2018) to have a 67% probability to keep warming under 1.5K -Switching from a 1.5K to the 2K target allows a ~16 year delay to start decarbonizing -Switching from a 50-year to 20-year decarbonization plan allows a ~10 year delay -Switching from a 90% to a 67% probability to meet a 2100 temperature increase target allows ~8 years delay -A massive global negative emissions effort starting later this century allows only 6-10 years delay This table summarizes all these figures, and does a good job showing that delaying decarbonization now results in increasingly harder mitigation efforts later to meet a temperature target: The article press release has a summary, along with some nice quotes: European Geosciences Union posted:Deadline for climate action – Act strongly before 2035 to keep warming below 2°C One critical problem with this paper, which they point out explicitly, is that it does not adequately emergent positive feedbacks at increased temperatures. So it's probably optimistic! Burt Buckle posted:I’ve seen quite a few about carbon capture tech recently. Hopefully it continues to decrease in cost at the same rate that solar has.
|
# ? Sep 1, 2018 23:42 |
Thus we need nuclear, and coal to go on welfare. Maybe WV can go into mountaintop removal wilderness creation. edit: grammar vorebane fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Sep 2, 2018 |
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 01:13 |
|
The thread the last few pages is on the money. So many people out there think that some new carbon capture tech is going to save us from having to radically alter our society, when in reality we have to decarbonize to survive, then maybe if we are lucky we can undo some damage with capture tech.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 02:13 |
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:The thread the last few pages is on the money. So many people out there think that some new carbon capture tech is going to save us from having to radically alter our society, when in reality we have to decarbonize to survive, then maybe if we are lucky we can undo some damage with capture tech. I guess you haven't heard of Elon Musk! He will save us!!
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 02:19 |
|
i have to wrap this in a loving wall of caveats about his spoiled manchild behavior and his psycho gambling addict financial strategy but if you can put that aside literally no one is doing more for the cause of decarbonizing right now. which isn't to say his impact is more than marginal, just that, its quite large. put it this way: assume all the things he's aiming for would have happened anyway without him/tesla. every other car manufacturer would eventually have electrified, and then ~20 years later as the fleet of rolling stock turned over, assuming the grid was being decarbonized in parallel, the "car and light truck transportation" segment of carbon emissions will be massively reduced. if he hadn't dumped his paypal money into saving the roadster and then building the model s, that whole process, I argue, would have taken *at least* 5 years longer, easily 10. that difference in emissions, if the transition occurs over 2020 - 2040 instead of 2025 - 2045, that has got to be well into the hundreds of millions of megatons if not a handful of gigatons. so yea he's an evil ceo, but, scoreboard.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 03:38 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:i have to wrap this in a loving wall of caveats about his spoiled manchild behavior and his psycho gambling addict financial strategy I'm sure he's on Tinder. You can probably talk to him directly rather than going through us.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 04:03 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:if he hadn't dumped his paypal money into saving the roadster and then building the model s, that whole process, I argue, would have taken *at least* 5 years longer, easily 10. There's absolutely no proof of this at all. If anything, your logic would lead to Nissan getting the credit, since they're the ones actually selling the most popular (and cheaper) EV. You're going to claim the "coolness" factor is why everyone is getting into EVs, which is certainly the narrative Musk likes to propagate, but it isn't backed up by the on the ground reality. If Brown signs into law AB 100, that'll be instantly more towards decarbonization than Musk ever will do.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 04:17 |
|
paradex posted:I don't think a lot of people understand the reality until it hits them. The BC fires are so devastating that Seattle, hundreds of miles away, was having a very bad time. I had headaches, my eyes watered, kept coughing, the sky was orange, people started wearing masks and getting pissy, and it only lasted for for a week and a half and this is in the most passive city on the planet. I’ve lived in BC most of my life, for the last 40 years give it take, albeit in metro Vancouver. The last several years of wild fires have been unusual and progressively so. Last year and this August was flat out apocalyptic in terms of air quality and visibility. And I’m in a place relatively unaffected, friends and family in Prince George and the Okanagan were sending us pictures in the middle of the day that looked like they were in Mordor.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 04:51 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:There's absolutely no proof of this at all. quote:If anything, your logic would lead to Nissan getting the credit, since they're the ones actually selling the most popular (and cheaper) EV. quote:You're going to claim the "coolness" factor is why everyone is getting into EVs, which is certainly the narrative Musk likes to propagate, but it isn't backed up by the on the ground reality. obviously I can't "prove" it, but I think we'd see more automakers pulling the "we're waiting for fuel cells" procastination card that toyota and honda are, for longer, if not for tesla (particularly the model S) quote:If Brown signs into law AB 100, that'll be instantly more towards decarbonization than Musk ever will do.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 05:11 |
|
If we substituted fossil fuels with the best currently available non-fossil fuels technology then will it be compatible with maintaining, or even improving, current living standards? How feasible is it to decarbonize while also maintaining living standards in the first world and also providing improved living standards to the third world? I'm currently under the impression that we can't decarbonize with current technology without a humanitarian collapse even greater than the fall of the Soviet Union in the first world, and utter ruination of the third world. But I can't remember exactly where I got that idea from, so I'm not sure if its really true and wondering what the real facts are. It'd be nice to be proved wrong.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 05:28 |
|
bioremediation you dumbasses. you absolute plebs (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 05:51 |
|
this broken hill posted:bioremediation you dumbasses. you absolute plebs Sorry fuckwit, but it's not going to save us.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 06:47 |
|
Hello Sailor posted:Sorry fuckwit, but it's not going to save us. do on then, i pray thee, fast. look now forwards and let be backwards; and see what thee faileth, and not what thou hast, for that is the readiest getting and keeping of meekness. all thy life now behoveth altogether to stand in desire, if thou shalt profit in degree of perfection. this desire behoveth altogether be wrought in thy will, by the hand of almighty G-d and thy consent. but one thing i tell thee. he is a jealous lover and suffereth no fellowship, and him list not work in thy will but if he be only with thee by himself. he asketh none help, but only thyself. he wills, thou do but look on him and let him alone. and keep thou the windows and the door, for flies and enemies assailing. and if thou be willing to do this, thee needeth but meekly press upon him with prayer, and soon will he help thee. press on then, let see how thou bearest thee. he is full ready, and doth but abideth thee. but what shalt thou do, and how shalt thou press? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 06:50 |
why does the UN want to steal all my electricity and give it to foreigners
|
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 07:43 |
|
who the gently caress is a musk fan or a ghosn fan or a tavares fan or a hackett fan When will y'all stop venerating captains of industry, you utter morons. Every single one of them deserves the rope.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 08:40 |
|
I know bioremediation techniques and their limitations, jackass. It's part of what I had to learn to get my degree. It's not a magic bullet that can solve climate change. If you think otherwise, do something besides threadshit for once and explain how you think it works, so I can tell you why you're a moron (beyond the obvious). Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Sep 2, 2018 |
# ? Sep 2, 2018 09:31 |
|
Yeah climate change will cause social upheaval of some kind and if there's going to be one good outcome, I hope to see Musk, Bezos & co dangling in the wind
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 09:39 |
|
Corsec posted:I'm currently under the impression that we can't decarbonize with current technology without a humanitarian collapse even greater than the fall of the Soviet Union in the first world, and utter ruination of the third world. But I can't remember exactly where I got that idea from, so I'm not sure if its really true and wondering what the real facts are. It'd be nice to be proved wrong. International transport and travel is I think one of the biggest things that there isn’t a decarbonizing alternative to. Things like food and electricity all have zero emission alternatives that would leave people with the same quality of life, but I don’t known of a carbon free way to travel to Europe or get goods from China, things like that. Also, I know that this is the internet so we have to stick to certain talking points, but goddamn how can anybody not acknowledge that Elon Musk has done good work for the environment? That’s like saying Bill Belichick is a bad football coach because he is a boring interview. You can be a lovely person and still do great things.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 14:33 |
|
What has he done, besides making cars that eat up our limited lithium supplies? As in, what has he done, and not one of his workers? Cause all I can find on google is things he wants to do, or things he has said could be neat.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 14:55 |
|
Corsec posted:If we substituted fossil fuels with the best currently available non-fossil fuels technology then will it be compatible with maintaining, or even improving, current living standards? How feasible is it to decarbonize while also maintaining living standards in the first world and also providing improved living standards to the third world? imho you're completely right, it is not feasible. however, it is... gently caress I'm not sure what the word should be here. something between "functional" (in the math sense) and "fungible" (in the commodity sense). for every metric ton your car *doesn't* emit driving in a year, an entire town in india can have ~1 more megawatt of coal fired electricity before we have to shut the plant down. if you're a suburban "2 car family" thats about one week of *just your driving* emissions. in a perverse kind of way, its the most perfect "market" we've ever had. like when your mom used to tell you to finish your vegetables because starving people in africa it was bullshit because your food and their food didn't have a jet stream between them. with atmospheric carbon emissions its really true. its one great big pool we're peeing in. people like to think of this as "X00ppm by 2100" or "Y0 cm sea level rise by 2050" or "Z% reduction by 2030" but those are all just points on the curve to give you frames of reference. every kilogram, every day, is your choice of which way *you* want to bend the curve. edit: while i was googling for some numbers i came across this, its a really good visual for what the sliding scale of our "carbon budget" looks like: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-many-gigatons-of-co2/ edit2: combining a reply so i don't doublepost THE BAR posted:What has he done, besides making cars that eat up our limited lithium supplies? this is 100% a giant red flag that someone is just a shitposting internet contrarian. the environmental wreckage of lithium mining compared to oil and gas production is so staggeringly night and day, that only someone without the slightest grounding in reality could harp on it. all mining is bad for the environment, but you are comparing a loving papercut to a 357 rammed down the back of your throat. its unhinged. quote:As in, what has he done, and not one of his workers? Cause all I can find on google is things he wants to do, or things he has said could be neat. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Sep 2, 2018 |
# ? Sep 2, 2018 15:12 |
|
Regarding Tesla autos and rooftop solar, there's certainly less effective ways of separating rich morons from their money while subsidizing green tech.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 15:18 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:24 |
|
Anyone who praises Musk ITT has to explain what's been the positive effect of aggressively marketing inefficient EVs as novelty items for wealthy hipsters.
|
# ? Sep 2, 2018 15:18 |