Verge posted:

Don't be so mopey! All-electric vehicles are being taken seriously whereas 10 years ago they weren't even seen as a realistic idea for anyone but a child. Provided the tech works with single passenger vehicles, I'll be getting one as my next vehicle! Harley loving Davidson is working on an electric motorcycle!

-hugs-

Buddy, the green movement is winning. We've always been winning. The only issue is that it's a race against the clock. Whether we win before time runs out is indeed a question but it's no absolute at this time.

Arkane posted:

Nothing in the agreement is binding, and the pledge to reduce emissions is impossible without new technologies.

We don't have much of a clue what level of emissions would keep temperatures 2C below pre-industrial...could be as high as 1200ppm if climate sensitivity is 1C per doubling.

Arkane posted:

This is misleading. Much of that 1C increase you cite is prior to 1940, and likely had very little correlation with human activity/CO2.

This is why the problem is usually described along the lines of.... "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities." Note: "most" and "recent decades."

quote:

We know mathematically that a doubling of CO2, all other factors aside, leads to a 1C increase. There are likely to be feedbacks on top of that which increase the number to above 1C per doubling, but there's wide disagreement on what the number is (from the low 1s to above 2).

quote:

Let me clarify: it is impossible without new technology in every scenario except the one where world economies are dismantled and humanity is immediately thrust into deep poverty. You are right...in that scenario of human misery, emissions will fall dramatically.

Trabisnikof posted:

Why would global climate change end currency in such a way that you can't transfer your wealth later?

SKELETONS posted:

Perhaps take steps to deal with mental health issues first, since nothing you do as an individual will have any impact on ACC but you can have a very strong impact on your health and well being by looking after your mental health.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

As for not suicidal well, I just remind myself that we still might gently caress off to space soon.

Potato Salad posted:

Reproduction as a civil right? My understanding is that civil rights do not provide for any right you can think of, but rather very specifically equality in the law. Apply a two-child law across the board, and what do you violate?

This is beyond the practical implementation or even support of such a policy, ie "get the government out of my (Religion asserting reproductive rights here) household."

Batham posted:

Your contribution is noted, unfortunately you most likely live in the part of the world where not having children would have any meaningful impact.

computer parts posted:

Someone using absolute numbers ITT.

How are u posted:

I was really hoping to get the chance to dive the Great Barrier Reef some day.

Welp.

Isaac0105 posted:

If only we had gotten our electric planes online, so we could have flown them over our organic monoculture rainforests, and eaten our Taco Bell soybean tofu burritos. If only, then the barrier reef might still be alright. ;-;

Banana Man posted:

Are you stalking him to determine how much co he is responsible for

whitey delenda est posted:

How are u posted:

Probably best not to think about it too much or you will get very depressed.
I've been on the fence about having children for a while now and wasn't planning on having any for 5 or 6 years anyway, but if the science that papers such as the above purport turn out to be true then I just don't think I'll ever be able to justify doing it.

How are u posted:

hosed, we're all hosed. Don't have children.

How are u posted:

I was really hoping to get the chance to dive the Great Barrier Reef some day.
Welp.

Mozi posted:

Were you angry at Al Gore for flying on planes?

Banana Man posted:

I meant more along the lines of the Brazil thing.

Please don't co shame

Paradoxish posted:

To be entirely fair, any kind of individual sacrifice in the face of climate change is basically just self-flagellation anyway. You can't make a difference by not flying places, because the plane is still going whether you buy that ticket or not. Any individual purchasing decisions you make (or don't make) are too small to matter. Your purchasing decisions won't influence enough people around you for it to be meaningful.

Thinking that you can actually make a difference outside of actual advocacy work and/or supporting groups that do advocacy work is just another way of saying that we can consume our way out of this problem. It's pretty silly to complain about someone being a hypocrite if they aren't, like, chartering private flights or running around all weekend on their yacht.

Cranappleberry posted:

I'm sorry you're mad about that guy but you could stop using heat and electricity because of the CO2 released from your personal use. Otherwise you're a hypocrite for calling that guy out but not making small sacrifices that will one day change nothing.

Paradoxish posted:

You're missing my point by a pretty wide margin.

You, as an individual living in a first world nation, likely have almost no personal responsibility for climate change. It doesn't matter what your carbon footprint is or how often you take part in high emissions activities like air travel. Your actual, real contribution to climate change is effectively nil, and the amount you can feasibly reduce that is even less. Take driving, for example. If you go out and buy a more fuel efficient car, you've reduced your carbon footprint. That's fine, whatever. You know what's infinitely better? Regulations requiring that cars meet certain fuel efficiency standards so that all new cars are more efficient. You know what's even better than that? Massively expanded public transport so that fewer people need to drive. Your individual contribution is meaningless in the face of the kind of sweeping changes that actually need to be made.

Cranappleberry posted:

Sounds like your comfort as a first worlder is more important than the environment.

You're mad and berating someone for not 100% living up to words they said on the internet as if it were some sort of contract. I guess what I'm trying to say here is, you're Arkane levels of dumb.

Cranappleberry posted:

Never you mind that his individual C02 output, high or low, is so negligible that if 100,000 people adopted his lifestyle it wouldn't defray the emissions from, much less the environmental impact of, a single petrochemical plant.

This is not to say don't be environmentally conscious, but if you seriously believe your individual carbon footprint matters, then you are as delusional as climate change deniers.

People crying about my pertinent and accurate response to a specific accusation about my CO2e production posted:

Waah wahh. I have no actual rebuttal.

How are u posted:

Go gently caress yourself, I'm not going to stop travelling because you want me to live in a tent and eat only veggies I grow in my garden. I'm not having a child, which basically offsets every single other thing I do in my life that contributes to carbon emissions. I also work in climate advocacy, putting pressure on states and the fed to improve every measure to combat increased climate change. I'm in the clear, gently caress you.

e: jesus I went back and ready all of your subsequent replies and you sound like a quite the insufferable little poo poo.

Dubstep Jesus posted:

Or prices go down and usage increases to compensate.

Salt Fish posted:

I feel like this is a bad faith argument because you can clearly tell from his/her posts that they are not going to be procreating anytime soon.

Potato Salad posted:

Marmot, you are writing in a way that comes off intentionally combative and makes you sound like an rear end.

Dubstep Jesus posted:

e: this derail over an offhand comment about hoping to dive the coral reefs is so loving stupid. The whole point of that comment was that we've hosed up badly enough that the OP won't even be able to do that in a few years. The only emissions created as a result of that comment will be from your moronic meltdown.

Trabisnikof posted:

Are we still talking about Climate Change? Because AB32 and the Clean Power Plan are the most anyone has done for climate thus far. Especially compared to Europe.

If we're talking about impact scale, south east Asia and South America will be far more negatively impacted by Climate Change than North America will.

Trabisnikof posted:

Good job comparing meaningless numbers!

(Also you probably wanted to use CO2 equiv anyway)


The emissions are reduced not because of policy, but because of economic downturn.

The Clean Power Plan and the CAFE standards are huge policy shifts compared to the EU's efforts. Likewise, AB32 is a far better cap-and-trade system than the EU ETS, to the point where the EU is a joke while AB32 is a model for new regulation.

Not to say these plans don't have flaws, but this idea that America is forsaken is just ignorant of the level of global inaction.

Trabisnikof posted:

Really now? Please tell me all about these EU climate polices from the 80s that caused the emission decline. (Hint: 2005 is after the 1980s)

Or maybe instead it was economic factors, the fall of the soviet union, the shifting of high intensity industries out of the EU zone etc. After failing to meet their Kyoto commitments I don't know why you're white knighting the EU regulators so hard.

Yes, you're correct that US emissions have increased as US energy sources have been brought in-country. I'm sure the methane leakage numbers on Russian gas and oil supplied to EU nations are completely accurate. Thankfully for the US, we can and have implemented stricter emissions regulations* and that's something EU regulators can't do to Russian producers.

*Effective Jan 2015, so effectiveness data is still in the academic pipeline, but this EPA is serious about climate so I'm hopeful.

Arkane posted:

I didn't mean it would accelerate, I meant that the year on year effect, over the long run, could mitigate significant amounts of atmospheric CO2. Obviously as plant life expands, carbon intake increases. So along with carbon sinking into the oceans, this is another naturally-occurring valve by which carbon is being drained from the atmosphere.

Climate models are predicated on extremely large increases in CO2 levels, so even small changes year on year would have a profound impact on models projecting the carbon imbalance in, say, the year 2100.

Arkane posted:

What I said was over the next few decades, these sinks could reduce the increases. Because atmospheric co2 projections rely on compounding emissions growth, small changes to the year on year multiplier can have large impacts at the end point. For instance (these numbers are purely illustrative), if you start with 3ppm and compound it by 2% annually, you end up with 1050ppm in 2100. If you compound it annually by 1.5%, you end up with about 900ppm. A minuscule year on year change has a rather large impact over a long enough period of time.

Rime posted:

I experienced 50 degrees Celsius last year in southeastern Turkey. It's hard to put that kind of heat into words: the air hurts to breathe, it's hard to stay conscious in the shade, entering the sun for just a minute is like stepping into the flame of a BBQ. You can't even swim in rivers, because the water acts as a magnifying glass and cooks you. By 8am it was over 30 degrees, and it was still over 22 at midnight.
I saw grass spontaneously combust twice in the same day. Maybe there was glass or something nearby to cause it, but it just went poof. I drank 8L of water and was still dehydrated.

WaryWarren posted:

I was in Turkey/Armenia/Georgia last August. When we landed in Yerevan, it was 48 degrees. Unfuckingreal. The entire meteorological summer (June - August) last year was absolutely ridiculous in northern Italy. Every day had a maximum temperature between 37 to 41 degrees C, while it cooled off to 30 by dawn.

Rime posted:

Weather stations present an aggregate measurement across large regions which does not account for localized outliers. The thermometers I observed in Hasenkeyf read 50-51 degrees while I was there.

blowfish posted:

ITT we discover: it's hotter in the sun than in the shade

Mozi posted:

So it was hotter than 44C, then - his original point being that he knew what 50C felt like, which is valid even if he was in a slightly hotter place than the official reading.

VectorSigma posted:

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly constitutes a "climate-related death," given that any acute atmospheric effect capable of causing an immediately quantifiable harm is by definition weather.

Arkane posted:

How cloud cover will change in a warming climate remains one of the biggest unknowns in modeling future temperature changes...it is (was) assumed to have a slightly positive feedback, which is to say changes in cloud cover were going to amplify warming.

New research out of CERN points to it being a negative feedback that will slow the warming: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies

That is good news. Also goes hand-in-hand with what I posted a couple weeks back about the Earth getting greener.

Arkane posted:

The takeaway from this post is that the Earth is getting greener faster than we expected. And with the Earth greening faster than we expected, this sequesters more carbon than we expected and specifically relating to what I just posted...creates more aerosols than we expected, which will seed more clouds than we expected. Because, interestingly, the areas where we are seeing the most greening will create the most aerosols (boreal forests with pine trees).

quote:

It is DEFINITELY false that "we know that increasing cloud cover increases temperature today." It's also not as simple as that, since there are different types of clouds that have different effects on either inbound or outbound radiation.

quote:

We have a lot of clues about what may happen with clouds in a warming world, but nothing close to definitive. In fact, your first link says pretty much exactly what I said lol: "Currently the role that water vapor and clouds play in warming or cooling the Earth's climate system is being investigated by scientists." Clouds are a big unknown. If you don't trust your own NOAA link, here is a link where alarmist SkS also says the exact same thing I said in their first graf: http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm

quote:

Maybe El Nino has spiked us up above the models, I haven't seen a model/observation comparison in a few months, but we're in a huge outlier year temperature-wise and we have otherwise been significantly below the models.

As far as "there is no good news"...well, if you don't know much about the topic, as it appears, then yeah I could see why you only see the bad news you specifically look for.

Arkane Dec 18 2012 posted:

On a 30 year scale, we're rising at a decadal rate of ~.13C

Arkane Jan 29 2013 posted:

If the very recent trends (10 years of little warming, ~35 years of .17/decade C) relative to modeled predictions are indicative of future warmth, we are certainly severely exaggerating the risk.

Arkane May 11 2013 posted:

As of April 2013, temperatures have been flat for well over a decade, with a longer-term trend around .15 C per decade. That is not an inaccurate or misleading statement

Arkane June 11 2014 posted:

Yeah the longer-term trend is around .14C per decade of increases, no doubt.

Arkane posted:

Something like permafrost is more of a buzzword than a worry.

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:

If I had to guess, the Earth will be approximately .4 degrees warmer, and the sea levels will be 3.5 inches higher than today in 2040. Virtually indiscernible changes by the time we become a multi-planet species.

Arkane posted:

If its a provable, we're ~25 years from fusion energy becoming commonplace.

Arkane posted:

Alright let's slow this down: you're saying that something that was expected to happen (CO2 accelerating) makes something that was not expected to happen (Earth greening very quickly) irrelevant? Makes no sense. I mean, NCC thought it was important enough to publish, which isn't a complete validation, but it gives you at least a higher benchmark to dismiss it than that nonsense.

quote:

Isolating one study and calling it evidence when you have countervailing data is a joke.

quote:

If we hit cool phase ENSO in 2018 and we're back below the MoE for the models, are you going to be in here posting about it? Not exactly intellectually honest taking a victory lap for the models in a year where ENSO has given an adrenaline shot to temperature.

Arkane posted:

Looks like you got some work to do on your 37 month smoothing at the end points bruh.

ChairMaster posted:

Yea, that sounds like something the developed world would do.

JohnnySavs posted:

We only need a 3.67 million of the as-yet-unbuilt scaled-up plants to cancel out human-caused CO2 emissions!

Trabisnikof posted:

The paper on the co2 bacteria is finally published and Ars has a write up. Unsurprisingly it isn't as fawning as the embargo-breaking blog post, but still very interesting and cool:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/mixed-catalyst-bacterial-system-gives-photosynthesis-a-run-for-its-money/

CommieGIR posted:

Time for someone to learn about the foooooood chaaaaaaiiinnn.

pidan posted:

It's been warmer than current temperature +6° in relatively recent earth history, so I don't think the ecosystem is going to shut down completely. And certainly not within the next century.

Sure, nothing can be done to avoid catastrophic climate change at this point, but plenty can be done to make it less bad than it could be (by reducing emissions) and to adapt to what is unavoidable.