Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Arkane posted:

You cannot just assume the status quo when our technological horizons are being expanded at an incredibly rapid pace. There are decades before any of these adverse effects will take hold, if they ever do. The world will be UNRECOGNIZABLY and UNFATHOMABLY more advanced and better equipped to deal with problems that may arise.

Arkane posted:

But I am wondering...what is going to happen in 50 years? You seem to have these visions of doom, almost as if you want them to occur just to be proved right or something.

Climate changes are FAR too slow for anything on that type of time scale to lead to some sort of apocalypse.

I don't see how you could possibly expect technology to exist in 50 years which is capable of reversing climate change. Every suggestion I've heard is sci-fi level nonsense (giant space mirrors, etc), which can't happen on that time scale. Unless you actually have some specific technology in mind, you're totally unconvincing.

On the other hand, preventing (or at least mitigating) climate change before it gets too bad is much more feasible (still a great challenge). But you'd have to be a moron to actually suggest we just wait for the consequences to full emerge, and try to deal with them then.

# ¿ May 30, 2012 13:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:17

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

a lovely poster posted:

Derrick Jensen
John Michael Greer
Daniel Quinn

I think Derek Jensen is probably going to be your best bet. John Michael Greer's blog is pretty good as well.

Just to clarify, there are very few prominent authors who actually identify as primitivist/anarcho-primitivist. None of the authors listed above do. It's a stupid umbrella term which wasn't invented by the people it covers. "Primitivist" is often considered a pejorative term; I know that Quinn openly mocks primitivists.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2012 05:36

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Your Sledgehammer posted:

Disagreement is fine, but I'd really appreciate it if people would stop putting words in my mouth or making assumptions about the position I am taking.

Most are never going to stop misinterpreting what you've said, and putting words into your mouth. From almost a decade of discussing this stuff with people, I know that a large majority of people simply can't wrap their head around any "primitivist" concepts, and merely understand it as "living in the forest, digging up tubers with your bare hands for food, living in the stone age." Like it's merely being ultra-Amish or something. That's because these people see the only difference between civilized and non civilized peoples as being technology and material wealth. Anybody who can't get past that roadblock will never be able to grasp what you're actually saying, and it's simply foolish to engage with them.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2012 13:44

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

It's unsurprising that the only people bringing up the whole noble savage things are critics who can't be bothered to actually read correctly, and prefer to project their own absurd ideas onto Your Sledgehammer/Desmond.

Primitivism has nothing to do with savages and nothing to do with nobility. It's not about changing human nature. It's about building a social structure (or reverting to an old one) which accommodates human nature better than civilization currently does.

But please don't let that stop you from saying I believe hunter gathers have magical powers or are monks or some such bullshit.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2012 21:43

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Amarkov posted:

that primitive socities are more in tune with human nature, and that being more in tune with human nature is always desirable.

What the gently caress does this even mean? It sounds like nonsense, and is completely unrelated to anything I've actually said (oh and it's not also what the term "noble savage" means, which is also silly but at least it's a coherent idea).

the kawaiiest posted:

It's true that our way of life is terrible and destructive, and I completely agree with you that it needs to change, but what we need to do is not revert back to the "good old ways", because they're not that good, and I'm not saying that because they don't include cars, iPhones and air conditioning.

And I don't think anyone is saying that the problem is medicine, either.

ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jun 18, 2012

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 04:31

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Radd McCool posted:

Are you saying that primitivism better accommodates human needs without being more in tune with them?

Edit: Edited for clarity.

I'm saying I don't understand what being "in tune with human nature" actually means.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 04:37

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Radd McCool posted:

Ah. I think it's basically what you said but with primary connotations of existential harmony. Which isn't new agey, as I'd contend that what confers resistance to numerous disorders and diseases is the same as what engenders contentment and health - of the sort associated with the Noble Savage's harmonious e istence, hence the tie-in. That was my read, anyway

Okay I think I get you, but I try to avoid terms like "in tune" or "harmonious" because it sounds like drivel. What I do believe is that "primitive" lifestyles have benefits that people on some level inherently desire, such as tight-knit communal lifestyle, a basic assurance of security (barring famine or drought), and a low amount of stress.

the kawaiiest posted:

My post was in reference to that specifically as I've been bringing up the fact that primitivism rejects modern science

And again this comes back to my earlier critique of the term primitivism. It originally referred to rejection of technology, but now encompasses pretty much all hard critiques of civilization. I believe that the problems with civilization are primarily cultural, not technological, and I'm not convinced that most technology is mutually exclusive with "primitive" social structures. So I don't advocate the type of "primitivism" you're projecting on to me.

John_Anon_Smith posted:

You literally deny that you're making the noble savage trope then immediately go on to immediately contradict yourself by affirming the noble savage trope.

Noble savage doesn't mean what you think it means.

ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jun 19, 2012

# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 11:59

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

4liters posted:

No, climate change is a direct result of the choices we have made/had forced upon us by capitalism. Not all technology is mutually exclusive to preventing climate change and humanity needs people to have an educated and rational discussion about what to take forward, what needs to be improved and what to leave behind. It isn't helpful to throw your hands in the air and go off the sharpen your collection of spear points and digging sticks.

So I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit. I also don't think technology itself is the problem, but your argument (people need to be educated and rational) isn't convincing at all either, because what you appear to be suggesting is that we improve human nature itself, which is silly. Any solution that is based on people simply being "better" or "nobler" than they are now can't possibly succeed, because such a thing just can't happen.

I'll never expect society to collectively act responsibly out of benevolence, wisdom, or even fear. If we are ever able to set ourselves on a sustainable course, I believe it will be because they found a lifestyle or social structures which satisfies the same desires they've been pursuing for the last 10,000 years, while still allowing them to live in equilibrium with the rest of their equilibrium.

So in short, simply saying "we just have to be smarter/wiser/nobler" as advocating for the continuation of civilization is nonsense. I see it as exactly on par with primitivists who say "we have to be smarter/wiser/nobler" as advocating a return to primitive lifestyles. Both sides are appealing to a noble fantasy that never existed and will never exist.

edit: and if you feel like I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize, I know you didn't explicitly make some of these claims. I've extrapolated quite a bit, because I get the feeling that many people here actually do believe this stuff, and it's important to get it out in the open.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2012 13:16

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Saying "oh look the oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere isn't that great" is equivalent to saying "oh look the rivers are carrying away all the benzene from that chemical plant, how great."

# ¿ Aug 2, 2012 12:57

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Yiggy posted:

Political forecast savant Nate Silver is embroiled in a spat with Michael Mann over misrepresentation and alleged propagation of denialist memes in his new book. In a twitter battle Nate claim's Mann didn't properly read the book, Mann responds that Nate minces words and tries to play both sides.

Being a climatologist must really suck. Their work is extremely important, but they get ignored and shat on by most people. Then once in a while an opportunity like this comes around to spread good science, and even that gets hosed up by authors and journalists.

I'm hoping Nate will respond, but I have a feeling he won't.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2012 13:14

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Uranium Phoenix posted:

Why is this graph using the 1990's IPCC prediction rather than the more recent one? The 1990s one is known to be flawed because it used a much simpler model, didn't incorporate volcanic eruptions that ended up happening, and other factors.

Well it's not entirely unreasonable to compare the predictions of old projections against the actual results. But even so such a comparison doesn't necessarily say anything about the validity of more current models. So yeah the article does reek of cherrypicking, but it's not like they're not allowed to criticize incorrect projections either.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2013 06:15

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Deleuzionist posted:

gently caress you Arkane.

Also ITT: D&D mod promises worthless even when written down.

Basically any post like his can be addressed with this:

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 00:30

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

StarMagician posted:

I was a lot more glib than I should have been with that statement. My feeling on the matter is that while there probably is some degree of global warming occurring, due either to natural processes or human intervention, the theory of global warming or climate change as presented to the public is not falsifiable, and is thus not testable. For it to be a true scientific theory, there should be some sort of hypothetical evidence that, if it manifested, would entirely disprove the theory of global warming. Dissent should be welcomed and used to improve the theory's predictive power.

Just because you can't replicate global climate change in a laboratory, doesn't mean it's not falsifiable. There are obviously ways to test and falsify climate change, it just turns out when you run those tests, the results tend to support the theory instead. So it's totally falsifiable, even if it hasn't been falsified.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2013 13:37

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Arkane posted:

Getting back to the interesting bit on the hiatus....not only has there been a pause since 2001 (or 1998 from the cherry-picked ENSO maximum), but the most recent 5-year model from the UK Met office forecasts it will continue until at least 2018:

So what exactly is your point Arkane? Do you believe that the pause in warming land temperatures is just a temporary compensation by non-anthropogenic phenomenon such as La Nina? Or do you think it actually demonstrates fundamental flaws in AGW models and theories? If the latter, then you've got a lot more explaining to do. If the former, why bring it up at all, except maybe to point out that pure serendipity has graced us with a decade or two of reduced land warming, which we should use as best we can to counter or prepare the inevitable end of the pause?

# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 16:41

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

TehSaurus posted:

I mean, I think we need to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday. I just want to know what a not-crazy climate denier argument looks like.

Most anti-AGW people aren't crazy, at least in the classic pants-on-head way. They're mostly ignorant, willingly or not. Some of them take it a step further by doing everything in their power to impress that ignorance onto other people by misrepresenting good science or pushing poo poo science. And some of these people are terrifyingly good at what they do, to the point where they actually have some mastery of the subject, but they use it for purely malicious purposes. It turns out they can't be reasoned away, only sufficiently humiliated.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2013 20:27

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Arkane posted:

The article discusses the possibility that the models could simply be overestimating warming

Actually the article states repeatedly that this is in fact the case; models have indeed predicted on the warm side recently.

quote:

which would imply that we are overestimating the planet's sensitivity to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide

No it wouldn't. I don't think the word "imply" means what you think it does.

The article then goes on to summarize the theory that PDO and la nina are responsible for the hiatus, and that these are inherently transient effects. The excess heat is still being trapped, just hidden somewhere we normally don't pay attention to.

quote:

At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water west ward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November�s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. �You can�t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,� Trenberth says. �At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.� And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.

Naturally you don't discuss this here, and instead focus on that single sentence.

ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Jan 21, 2014

# ¿ Jan 21, 2014 05:28

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Stereotype posted:

It actually represents a temperature increase of 0.2C in the top 700m, and 0.05C in the 700m to 2000m range. I didn't really expect you to do math correctly, so I'm glad I did it myself!

There is 3.6e14m² of ocean surface area. In the top 700m that means 2.5e20kg of water has been heated by a fifth of a degree. That is a dangerous thing.

Some fun, dirty math.

In 2008 global energy consumption was 144,000TWh, or 1.26e21 Joules. The energy needed to warm that water is 5e22 Joules. So that's roughly equivalent to dumping every single bit of energy we've ever burned for the past fifty years directly into the ocean. That's loving absurd.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2014 04:53

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

quote:

"Wind generation variability has a minimal and manageable impact on grid reliability and related costs." We'd have to expand transmission lines, but not at a rate that's any different from what we're doing at present.

What is this based on? I searched through the report and the only mention of variability basically handwaves furiously at it:

quote:

The levels of wind penetration examined in the Study Scenario increase variability and uncertainty in electric power system planning and operations (Figure ES.3-3). From the perspective of planning reserves, wind power�s aggregated capacity value in the Study Scenario was about 10�15% in 2050 (with lower marginal capacity value), thereby reducing the ability of wind compared to other generators to contribute to increases in peak planning reserve requirements. In addition, the uncertainty introduced by wind in the Study Scenario increased the level of operating reserves that must be maintained by the system. Transmission constraints result in average curtailment of 2�3% of wind generation, modestly increasing the threshold for economic wind deployment. These costs are embedded in the system costs and retail rate impacts noted below. Such challenges can be mitigated by various means including increased system flexibility, greater electric system
coordination, faster dispatch schedules, improved forecasting, demand response, greater power plant cycling, and�in some cases�storage options. Specific circumstances dictate the optimal solution. Continued research is expected to provide more specific and localized assessments of impacts.

I have a feeling that a lot of people underestimate the challenge of innovating the grid to handle renewables. It's the biggest manmade thing on the planet, for gently caress's sake.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 03:17

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Pervis posted:

Helium in the atmosphere is light enough to be blown away by solar winds and escape back in to space, or something. The helium that we captured came from oil wells, as a by-product of radioactive decay that was trapped underground. I think the price of helium is or will rise to the point where it'll be captured as part of the extraction process of oil/natural gas, but it sucks for industrial users of helium/whoever who relied upon the strategic helium reserves effect on prices for the last century or whatever. It reminds me of the Accuweather situation to a certain degree - it's government policy to make business opportunities (for the well-connected), possible at the expense of other business and almost certainly of the general public.

Most helium harvesting is done as a byproduct of natural gas harvesting. It's apparently not too difficult to extract helium, but for some reason the gas companies simply choose not to do so, and the helium is just allowed to escape into the atmosphere. For a while I thought this was just a stupid ploy to inflate the price of helium for mad profits, but a couple years back we actually had to shut down some research systems because our helium suppliers simply refused to renew a contract with us, citing a lack of supply. They wouldn't sell us helium, at any price whatsoever. Meanwhile tons of the stuff boils away into space every day, it's crazy.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2015 21:02

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Trabisnikof posted:

Also, check out the whole volume on storage and renewable technologies if you have detailed questions: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52409-2.pdf

IMO it's poor form to just post a link to a 300+ page PDF as an argument.

But while skimming it I found a figure suggesting that Lead acid batteries have a higher power density than EDL capacitors, :lol:

ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 05:02 on May 30, 2015

# ¿ May 30, 2015 04:52

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

crazypenguin posted:

Almost everyone, upon hearing that wind is an intermittent source of power, thinks the same thing: "oh no, what about the calm days with no wind? There won't be enough power!"

This is not the problem with wind. No wind power operator has ever had a shortfall problem. This is easy to deal with. No problemo.

The trouble with intermittent generation is harnessing the power when there are high winds. When electric companies tell wind operators "too much power! Shut that down!" that is the problem. All those economics calculation on the cost of wind assume you're able to actually harness and sell the power. If you can't sell it, precisely when its generating the most power, the cost of wind generators goes higher than any other form of energy. By a lot.

Do I seriously need to point out how dumb this is? The only difference between a temporary shortage and a temporary surplus in capacity is the current level of demand and the capacity from other sources. Sure if your coal/gas plants are load following and meeting demand by themselves, then the wind power is "surplus," but in that case the wind power is completely pointless since it's not supplanting fossil fuels. What we need to do is throttle down the coal and load follow with renewable, and that's when those calm days become huge problems.

quote:

In the long run, this is a totally solvable problem for wind, without requiring massive amounts of grid storage or anything like that. Once the transportation infrastructure is electric, you just have the grid tell cars to charge full-speed to soak up power when it's abundant, and charge more slowly when its scarce.\

This is a reasonable solution that I brought up a while ago. Have the federal government literally pay for the batteries in EVs, making them far more affordable, in exchange for owning the right to use those batteries to form microgrids as needed. Good luck convincing policymakers to go with that though.

ductonius posted:

I would never, ever buy an electric car that didn't charge as fast as it could every time I plugged it in. Telling anyone who's on low battery "sorry, you can't drive to $location for $time because the wind isn't blowing enough right now" is not going to work. Especially if $location is "the hospital".

So this is the energy policy equivalent of death panels :gonk:

ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 02:44 on May 31, 2015

# ¿ May 31, 2015 02:38

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Trabisnikof posted:

But to discuss the challenge you raise: improvements in the grid, storage, conservation, status quo nuclear, and renewables (+biogas, biomass) mixed together is a technically and economically feasible solution that can replace a system where we focus our entire grid on making sure our huge expensive plants stay on all the time. It is also one that allows us to front-load renewables, reducing carbon from electricity as fast as we can.

If we lived in a different reality, where we could viable plan, license, build and bring online new site nuclear power in the US in the next 15 years and do so on time and on budget, an increased nuclear fleet would seem a vastly more realistic solution to me. But we really can't. Blame hippies, lack of academics, international labor unions, greedy contractors, regulated-to-safety, or whatever but we can't just wait a decade for new nuclear plants, we need to build as much of what we can build now. Which is wind and solar. Yes, its not a final solution, but it is a feasible pro-climate electricity technology that we can deploy now.

As always, I have to disclaimer that I have a rather U.S. centric knowledge, and I know that so much of energy is geographic and what works in the US wouldn't work globally.

Once again, the whole grid storage/smart grid thing is the choking point. Economical grid storage technology doesn't exist, and will not exist for the foreseeable future. Proven fission plants have existed for decades, and don't require us to re-engineer the entire grid. And I don't think anyone here really grasps what a huge deal that is. The grid, as a whole, is the biggest and most complicated machine on Earth. You can't just say "we'll fix it and it will be cool."

And without grid storage or a completely redesigned grid, it doesn't matter how cheap it is to install renewable capacity. Beyond a certain point, the capacity couldn't possibly be utilized.

ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Nov 3, 2015

# ¿ Nov 3, 2015 15:29

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Arkane posted:

Not even close to true. Not sure why you are even discussing this topic if you're so ignorant about it. Start here: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/13/battery-costs-may-drop-100kwh/

I don't know why you think we should care what the gently caress Citigroup or HSBC think about battery technology. It's not my primary field, but I go to talks on smart grid/storage every few months, by the people who actually have the right to make ballsy projections. But almost none of them are optimistic about implementation. For the smart grid stuff, the science part actually looks pretty solid, we know how it could be done, but nobody could conceive of actually implementing it on the necessary scale.

Trabisnikof posted:

My point is, even if your naysaying about storage and grid improvements was true, the fact of the matter is, we are so far away from some point where adding renewables is problematic, so let's build renewables now

Non-hydro renewables are at, what, 6% of total generation now? Based on what experts are saying the ceiling for utilizing non-hydro renewables is somewhere around 15%. Up until that point, we should absolutely keep building. But it won't take us long to get there, maybe 15 years or so. And 15% isn't huge overall.

Nuclear seems by far the easiest way to get past that point.

ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Nov 4, 2015

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 07:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:17

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Arkane posted:

Link to a talk or a paper or an article or anything? Find this very hard to believe that you are characterizing their arguments correctly, because it is kinda obvious that battery storage is on the near term horizon.

I'm talking about university colloquiums (we don't record them), and obviously most researchers aren't going to conclude their publications by saying "but this will probably never be implemented" even if that's what they truly feel.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2015 01:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed