Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Sundae
Dec 1, 2005

quote:

I mean gently caress, I can't avoid climate news no matter what I do. RockPaperShotgun, Polygon, Av Club, Gizmodo, Waypoint, ALL of them can't go for a week without some thinkpiece related to our political and climate Doom. If even hobby sites are infected by doomsaying, the gently caress am I supposed to do? Stare at a wall all day?

Go outside. Pick up garbage on the highway. Have a beer with people who aren't made entirely of internet text. Watch Bob Ross videos and learn to paint happy trees. Do literally anything other than what you're doing right now.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

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

Mozi posted:

I found it!

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockStratAerosolGeo.pdf

Right in the abstract, in the middle of the 2nd paragraph.

"The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, conducting climate model experiments with standard stratospheric aerosol injection scenarios, has found that insolation reduction could keep the global average temperature constant, but global average precipitation would reduce, particularly in summer monsoon regions around the world. Temperature changes would also not be uniform; the tropics would cool, but high latitudes would warm, with continuing, but reduced sea ice and ice sheet melting. Temperature extremes would still increase, but not as much as without geoengineering. If geoengineering were halted all at once, there would be rapid temperature and precipitation increases at 5–10 times the rates from gradual global warming."

No, that's for intentional stratospheric aerosol injection as SRM.

irt existing global dimming, I don't have studies on hand but I recall it's masked something like 60-70% of the true warming we've experienced over the last century, and since particulates like aerosol droplets and black carbon only last a few weeks in the atmosphere before falling, a hard cease in all emissions would indeed result in a sudden temperature spike in the order of half to a full degree Celcius.

Trainee PornStar
Jul 20, 2006

Conspiratiorist posted:

No, that's for intentional stratospheric aerosol injection as SRM.

irt existing global dimming, I don't have studies on hand but I recall it's masked something like 60-70% of the true warming we've experienced over the last century, and since particulates like aerosol droplets and black carbon only last a few weeks in the atmosphere before falling, a hard cease in all emissions would indeed result in a sudden temperature spike in the order of half to a full degree Celcius.

Just checking I got this right.. So somehow we have to reduce our Co2 emissions while simultaneously emitting enough black carbon & aerosol to stop even more warming?

Crap! we really have baked in a hard time for ourselves :(

Notorious R.I.M.
Jan 27, 2004

up to my ass in alligators

Mozi posted:

I found it!

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockStratAerosolGeo.pdf

Right in the abstract, in the middle of the 2nd paragraph.

"The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, conducting climate model experiments with standard stratospheric aerosol injection scenarios, has found that insolation reduction could keep the global average temperature constant, but global average precipitation would reduce, particularly in summer monsoon regions around the world. Temperature changes would also not be uniform; the tropics would cool, but high latitudes would warm, with continuing, but reduced sea ice and ice sheet melting. Temperature extremes would still increase, but not as much as without geoengineering. If geoengineering were halted all at once, there would be rapid temperature and precipitation increases at 5–10 times the rates from gradual global warming."

Increasingly reducing insolation also repeatedly lifts the height of the photic zone in the ocean. Every lovely geoengineering scheme makes the same tradeoff to improve atmospheric conditions while increasing adaptive pressure in the oceans.

Nature has already shown us how to draw down carbon, we just don't like the reality of the time scales involved: sedimentary weathering and biomass sequestration.

The Dipshit
Dec 21, 2005

by FactsAreUseless

Trainee PornStar posted:

Just checking I got this right.. So somehow we have to reduce our Co2 emissions while simultaneously emitting enough black carbon & aerosol to stop even more warming?

Crap! we really have baked in a hard time for ourselves :(

"The last thing we de-carbonize is airline flights" is probably the shortest summary. That being said, it is going to be one hell of a ride, yeah.

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

Trainee PornStar posted:

Just checking I got this right.. So somehow we have to reduce our Co2 emissions while simultaneously emitting enough black carbon & aerosol to stop even more warming?

Crap! we really have baked in a hard time for ourselves :(

No, not quite, since we cannot literally stop the bulk of our emissions overnight - save by say a devastating global thermonuclear war, which would actually have the very fun effect of causing a short nuclear winter prior to the rapid temperature rise, just for that extra dose of gently caress you.

What it actually means is that as we reduce our emissions, temperatures would continue to climb by both the combined effect of a) reduced global dimming, as you theorized, and b) the fact we haven't reached the stable temperature maximum for the quantity of long duration green-house gases already released into the atmosphere.

The "ideal" curve is thus that temperatures continue to climb to around 2°C by mid-century, hold there for a couple decades, start reducing towards the end of the century, while for our emissions we go into zero by mid-century and further from there into the negatives, through the widespread implementation of carbon capture technologies.

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

The Dipshit posted:

"The last thing we de-carbonize is airline flights" is probably the shortest summary. That being said, it is going to be one hell of a ride, yeah.

vindicated at last!

StabbinHobo
Oct 18, 2002

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

vindicated at last!

thats not vindication rear end in a top hat that means its the one thing thats most reliant on conservation

WorldsStongestNerd
Apr 28, 2010

by Fluffdaddy

Conspiratiorist posted:

No, not quite, since we cannot literally stop the bulk of our emissions overnight - save by say a devastating global thermonuclear war, which would actually have the very fun effect of causing a short nuclear winter prior to the rapid temperature rise, just for that extra dose of gently caress you.

What it actually means is that as we reduce our emissions, temperatures would continue to climb by both the combined effect of a) reduced global dimming, as you theorized, and b) the fact we haven't reached the stable temperature maximum for the quantity of long duration green-house gases already released into the atmosphere.

The "ideal" curve is thus that temperatures continue to climb to around 2°C by mid-century, hold there for a couple decades, start reducing towards the end of the century, while for our emissions we go into zero by mid-century and further from there into the negatives, through the widespread implementation of carbon capture technologies.

So over the span of the first few decades that we start making serious changes, its going to appear to the uneducated public that no progress is being made as temps continue to rise.

Sundae
Dec 1, 2005
How dense of a shoo-fly pie do I have to make for it to count as a form of carbon sequestration? Those things basically never decay, so I could bury a bunch of them in a junkyard and put down a ton of carbon if my shoo-fly filling collection process (S-FFCP) is efficient enough.

So yeah, no matter how I look at this, ends up the Lancaster Amish have the keys to our past, present and future.

Rime
Nov 2, 2011

by Games Forum
Well hell thread, I just took a contract building the biggest wind turbines in North America for the foreseeable future, I start next month. How many to offset my lifetime carbon budget?

:thunk:

VideoGameVet
May 14, 2005

It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Rime posted:

Well hell thread, I just took a contract building the biggest wind turbines in North America for the foreseeable future, I start next month. How many to offset my lifetime carbon budget?

:thunk:

Depends. Do you eat meat? Drive to work? Take a lot of airline flights?

Admiral Ray
May 17, 2014

Proud Musk and Dogecoin fanboy

Rime posted:

Well hell thread, I just took a contract building the biggest wind turbines in North America for the foreseeable future, I start next month. How many to offset my lifetime carbon budget?

:thunk:

Are you building these onsite with a collection of green construction techniques or are you shipping them in? Were the factories they built in free range? How many anti-oxidants do they have? Any mangosteen?

StabbinHobo
Oct 18, 2002

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Rime posted:

Well hell thread, I just took a contract building the biggest wind turbines in North America for the foreseeable future, I start next month. How many to offset my lifetime carbon budget?

:thunk:

only one if you jump off it

Lightning Knight
Feb 24, 2012

Pray for Answer

StabbinHobo posted:

only one if you jump off it

Don't do this please.

Rime
Nov 2, 2011

by Games Forum

Admiral Ray posted:

Are you building these onsite with a collection of green construction techniques or are you shipping them in? Were the factories they built in free range? How many anti-oxidants do they have? Any mangosteen?

You haven't lived until you've seen a herd of free range turbine blades threshing their way across the prairies. Still wakes me up at night.

E: I looked it up, this farm is projected to displace 850,000t of carbon emissions a year. Not bad.

Rime fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Nov 16, 2018

VideoGameVet
May 14, 2005

It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Rime posted:

You haven't lived until you've seen a herd of free range turbine blades threshing their way across the prairies. Still wakes me up at night.

E: I looked it up, this farm is projected to displace 850,000t of carbon emissions a year. Not bad.

Most cost effective system there is. Awesome.

the nucas
Sep 12, 2002

TACD posted:

We all face consequences that are out of our hands every day. Climate change hasn't made that true, it's just made you realise it.

Here is a comic which I feel sums up much of the climate change thread:


i don't expect i'm the first person to bring this up in 400 pages, but there's a difference between the vague relationship with personal mortality men have contended with since the dawn times, and the weird existential despair that sets in with imagining the end of humanity/civilization after your death. samuel scheffler has written about this, calling it "collective afterlife dependency". there's something very different between "i am not the master of my fate" and "nothing i build, create, or accomplish matters, because everyone dies with me, and the wind will howl across our bones on the planet we converted to a lifeless tomb".

Tollymain
Jul 9, 2010

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Nocturtle posted:

This was basically how I saw it. However the context of the recent completely unnecessary unilateral US tariffs (or Brexit!) highlights that modern states won't always try to seek consensus and avoid unnecessary conflict, even to their own detriment. 20 years from now a competent fascist could plausibly become US president with a gerrymandered Republican Congress and Senate. If he orders the military to dump sulfates into the atmosphere, who will really stop him? Isolationism and the objections of the international community play well with the authoritarian demographic ("America will save the world by itself!"), and no-one is going to war with America. It's not clear whether US domestic institutions would be any real constraint, given that the President apparently can apparently order all sorts of terrible things if it's superficially to ensure national security.

lmao the united states is going to cease to exist as we currently know it inside of 15

Sundae
Dec 1, 2005

quote:

i don't expect i'm the first person to bring this up in 400 pages, but there's a difference between the vague relationship with personal mortality men have contended with since the dawn times, and the weird existential despair that sets in with imagining the end of humanity/civilization after your death. samuel scheffler has written about this, calling it "collective afterlife dependency". there's something very different between "i am not the master of my fate" and "nothing i build, create, or accomplish matters, because everyone dies with me, and the wind will howl across our bones on the planet we converted to a lifeless tomb".

Yes, in that one of those is something a sane person thinks and the other is blithering nonsense that acts as nothing but an excuse to not do anything.

Edit: Added the quote since someone slipped in between. :v:

Tollymain
Jul 9, 2010

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
im expecting things to get worse for basically the rest of our lives and no effort to deal w the disaster is going to go uninterfered-with because reactionaries exist

we as in the species will survive but i dont know what that looks like.

enjoy the good things while u can

that said im hoping for glorious socialist revolution

TACD
Oct 27, 2000

the nucas posted:

i don't expect i'm the first person to bring this up in 400 pages, but there's a difference between the vague relationship with personal mortality men have contended with since the dawn times, and the weird existential despair that sets in with imagining the end of humanity/civilization after your death. samuel scheffler has written about this, calling it "collective afterlife dependency". there's something very different between "i am not the master of my fate" and "nothing i build, create, or accomplish matters, because everyone dies with me, and the wind will howl across our bones on the planet we converted to a lifeless tomb".
I haven’t read the book but I’d argue that people use the ‘collective afterlife’ as a mental crutch for dealing with their own mortality and thus never really come to terms with the fact that everything ends eventually. If your life is given meaning by future humanity and humanity is given meaning by some imaginary endless march through time and space then you’re going to feel pretty raw when faced with the plain fact that they will both stop someday.

Conversely, trying to find meaning in the everyday lived experience of your life is challenging because it requires really facing up to the choices you’re making and what they imply for the values you think you hold; it means accepting that you probably won’t have much impact on the course of history but you actually can make meaningful changes in your life (once you stop making excuses for why you can’t). It’s certainly something I struggle with.

AceOfFlames
Oct 9, 2012

TACD posted:

Conversely, trying to find meaning in the everyday lived experience of your life is challenging because it requires really facing up to the choices you’re making and what they imply for the values you think you hold; it means accepting that you probably won’t have much impact on the course of history but you actually can make meaningful changes in your life (once you stop making excuses for why you can’t). It’s certainly something I struggle with.

Doesn't that encourage borderline solipsistic thinking? If only my life matters and everyone thinks the same, then why care about the future? Why care about anyone? It definitely feels to me like most people will ditch you the moment you have problems or no longer "fun" and even your best friends are just one move away from forgetting about you entirely. Am I supposed to put on a happy face and force myself to do things I hate with people who don't care about me because that's what everyone does?

incredible flesh
Oct 6, 2018

by Nyc_Tattoo
you know what would really benefit some of you psychologically? if you went out and did something concrete that you could look upon year on year and think "hey i did that", and then keep on doing it so in the future when you're feeling depressed you can look back on all the concrete things you did, which maybe form a whole that's more than the sum of its parts, and go "hey but i did that!" by concrete things i mean buying an acre of denuded land and planting a forest. my news tells me you can buy a house in detroit for ten dollars, go buy it and plant it full of ferns and then when it falls apart plant trees around the ruins and just leave it there for the lizards

incredible flesh
Oct 6, 2018

by Nyc_Tattoo
ps lightning knight you coward, this isn't a gimmick, i am exactly who i am and i'm an actual peri-apocalyptic ecologist pursuing that as a career irl and trying to spread the good news on the internet because this is a movement of hope and joy

Mozi
Apr 4, 2004

Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die
Nap Ghost
I’m glad that would make you feel better and it may well be therapeutic but many of us will not be fundamentally cheered by actions that have 0 effect on the eventual outcome, which is true of the examples you cite.

poopinmymouth
Mar 2, 2005

PROUD 2 B AMERICAN (these colors don't run)

Mozi posted:

I’m glad that would make you feel better and it may well be therapeutic but many of us will not be fundamentally cheered by actions that have 0 effect on the eventual outcome, which is true of the examples you cite.

It isn't fulfilling because it makes a definite difference in climate change resiliency (though some might), it's fulfilling because creating things and viewing measurable progress is a fundamentally fulfilling endeavour.

I know building and creating is one of the few things keeping me going these days. If all I did was consume I'd be even more of a sad sack.

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

TACD posted:

I haven’t read the book but I’d argue that people use the ‘collective afterlife’ as a mental crutch for dealing with their own mortality and thus never really come to terms with the fact that everything ends eventually. If your life is given meaning by future humanity and humanity is given meaning by some imaginary endless march through time and space then you’re going to feel pretty raw when faced with the plain fact that they will both stop someday.

Conversely, trying to find meaning in the everyday lived experience of your life is challenging because it requires really facing up to the choices you’re making and what they imply for the values you think you hold; it means accepting that you probably won’t have much impact on the course of history but you actually can make meaningful changes in your life (once you stop making excuses for why you can’t). It’s certainly something I struggle with.

People love the end of the world and have been cheering for it for as long as there has been history. Tons of people want time to wrap up around the time their life does, the idea there is going to be people after we die is repellent to people. Global warming is real and bad and will kill millions or even billions of people, but people really really want it to turn off the game or at least simplify it down so the whole world is one thing forever. The idea that there will be a world just as complex as there is now after us is super scary to a lot of people.

AceOfFlames
Oct 9, 2012

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

People love the end of the world and have been cheering for it for as long as there has been history. Tons of people want time to wrap up around the time their life does, the idea there is going to be people after we die is repellent to people. Global warming is real and bad and will kill millions or even billions of people, but people really really want it to turn off the game or at least simplify it down so the whole world is one thing forever. The idea that there will be a world just as complex as there is now after us is super scary to a lot of people.

And that is the mentality that makes zero sense to me. "If I am not alive, then NO ONE should be!" What, so you care nothing about legacy? About making your mark? About being part of an ever improving human race*? That's pure psychopathy to me.

*Yes, I know everyone is going to rightly jump on me for this but in case it wasn't obvious already the myth of progress is the only thing that sustains me, hence why I am so screwed up. FWIW my mom is even more deluded than I am and completely ignores my warnings about growing fascism because "the world never goes backwards".

DrSunshine
Mar 23, 2009

Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!
I majored in atmospheric science in my undergraduate days, where I learned about the Carbonate-Silicate cycle and how CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere long-term. Anyway, the other day I was sort of idly pondering, and came up with an idea for carbon capture. I'll throw it out there, as I'm wondering if folks more knowledgeable than I have already pondered and dismissed it as impracticable or unworkable.

My idea is -- what if we could grind up a huge amount of silicate rock into small pebbles or sand, and put them into rotating hoppers or drums of some kind. These rocks would be constantly washed by aerated water droplets, mimicking the natural action of rain forming carbonic acid in the atmosphere. You could power the drums with renewables or nuclear power or what have you. Construct thousands of such devices across the world, in great big "farms". The idea behind this lies basically in accelerating a natural process, by increasing the surface area of the reactant, and by ensuring that the reaction is constantly happening.

Would it work? Or would it still be too slow for what we need?

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
Just guessing the associated construction and operating costs, I think we'd have better luck seeding and sequestering algae.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Party Plane Jones
Jul 1, 2007

by Reene
Fun Shoe
The new Climate Change thread is located here:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3874548

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply