|
I was thinking the other day that most people who lives in urban areas (most North Americans), are completely detached from the natural world so I can understand them being dubious of climate change. They live in a climate controlled box and spend thirty seconds a day outside between the office and car and home. They water their lawn regularly so weather has no effect on their yards. When their power bill goes up they blame politicians and don't investigate why. When they go to Mexico it's hot and the water is blue but they don't go diving. Unless you are in touch with non-human altered environment over a multi-year span you will not have any first hand evidence of climate change. How exactly do you reach those people in their bubble? Do you write them off and go for their children instead? What got my attention as a kid was climbing Mt Baker for the third time and noticing the massive retreat of the glacier within only ten years. It was pretty impressive, but you can't expect any number of significant people to be in to mountaineering or have the awareness to notice these things. I guess the answer is time-lapse images but people will just upvote it on reddit and go back to cat photos. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Nov 10, 2015 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
We know the Earth is a system and systems are buffered and aren't linear. So anyone that has done an acid-base titration in chemistry will understand that all the natural sinks (buffers) could be overwhelmed at some point. Add 1uL NaOh per second to tris buffer at pH 7. 7.00 7.01 7.02 Hey it's fine earth has been around forever 7.03 7.04 7.05 We still have hundreds of years with no concern when we extrapolate out these small changes linearly. 7.06 7.07 7.09 You doom sayers predicted disasters years ago. 7.10 7.11 7.12 Climate change is a chinese hoax. 7.13 7.14 7.15 The earth was created by god for us to use as we please. 7.16 7.17 7.18 Cutting emissions would toroedo the economy. 7.19 7.20 7.25 What. 7.35 7.60 8.00 gently caress. 9.00 10.00 11.00 14.00 The ocean has been absorbing excess CO2 for a long time, it is converted to carbonate then bicarbonate which acidifies the water. Unrestrained emissions are going to murder the ocean and then us.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Fossil fuel use isn't decreasing due to its increasing costs, it's decreasing due to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewables. Every year solar, wind and battery installations get cheaper while fossil fuels get more expensive. As use further decreases their costs will keep going up due to loss of economy of scale and increasing labor/permits/insurance/lobbying costs. Meanwhile renewables are now gaining economy of scale so Trump is hosed and West Virginia is a bunch of idiot coal hicks that don't understand that Trump can't set gas or oil or coal prices. Enough industry and jobs have shifted to renewable tech that it now has critical mass, and just like how government used to be slave to the incumbent status quo of oil companies, many are now becoming slaves to renewable tech. For certain countries like Canada, renewables still don't matter because they missed the boat and are now economically hosed, for others like Germany and China, they are helming it for their own industrial interest. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Americans: enjoy pissing away 8 years and a trillion dollars on the clean coal quagmire under Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Start clean energy companies in states without an active investment in fossil fuels.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Why are you all so concerned when more CO2 just means that trees grow faster and make more oxygen and oxygen is good. Problem solves itself, drill baby drill.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The Actic has started melting again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Bunch of crazies in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
More koch bros shenanigans http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/b...re-iphone-share
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Change comes once someone figures out how to monetize the tech. Until a lot of people can 1. get rich by doing a thing that sequesters carbon and 2. lose money by producing carbon then there will be no change. Governments just exist to protect the industry incumbents so expect them to slow this process of change further.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Change comes when governments implement the correct policies to allow individuals and corporations to monetize tech. It will never be worthwhile to sequester carbon when emitting it carries no consequences, as an example. Or society understands the value for sequestering carbon and will pay people to do it. If I figured out how to sequester 10% of my nations emissions in my backyard, it wouldn't be worth any money unless the policies were in place to allow me to be paid to do it. Regulations don't precede new tech. CO2 has value, especially since it is produced along with heat. That heat and CO2 can be used to generate value added goods with the right catalysts and substrates. The tech and business case aren't there yet but the moment it is people will be seeking it out like fryer grease or garbage. A previously worthless good discarded in mass and now a limited and expensive resource in places. solar pv + waste heat + CO2 -> algal growth and biofuel production, separate biofuel from liquid fraction and return waste liquid to bioreactor; separate solids (dead algae) from solid fraction and isolate cellulose for industrial production of paper,absorptive products, etc. Waste solids go to fertilizer production. This stuff is already ongoing, just needs it all to come together as tech matures. It's always possible that human civilization could shift from carbon positive to carbon negative and end up with the opposite problem. If we have basically unlimited solar energy and growing trees for carbon goods is slow and inefficient then we could simply extract the CO2 from the air to generate goods and end up sucking out too much due to greed/profits/excess same as before. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Regulations CAN spur development. While solar was trucking along with significant progress, federal and state regulations increased investment and sped up efficiency gains far sooner than the previous market forces called for. IE. markets do respond to regulation, sometimes positively. Some people take it on faith that regulation always stifles innovation but that is not a truism. But no carbon capture tech has as of yet matured enough to gain a legislative following. No one wants to subsidize pumping CO2 in to the Earth's crust since that is political unsalable (and IMO dumb/wasteful). Now if a carbon capture tech matured enough to produce something of value that could create a new industry came along then that would be attractive for legislation and government investment and a focus for regulation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Aquifers still hosed regardless of snow/rain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Welp
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:Trump will solve this problem by cutting funding to climate research. Enjoy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:That's kinda it, yea. I don't see any value in giving up any of the comforts of my life for a cause that is already 100% lost. There's no "it'll all be okay as long as we work hard towards a positive solution" at this point, that was years and years ago and nobody cared and nothing got done. The political situation of the world with regard to climate change is even more impossible now than it was then. I don't really care what happens to the people of the future that much because they're beyond saving anyways. I just care about what happens to me now and in the near future, or whatever can be salvaged of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
It's also a false dichotomy. Efficiency and other advances allow you to have a smaller carbon footprint without giving up any measurable benefit. Also a lot of large carbon footprint activities are expensive so reducing ones footprint has the advantage saving money which can be redirected in to activities that return higher benefits resulting in a net increase in happiness. When it comes to climate change what needs to happen is just changing behavior of enough people and that can be done by raising awareness. When enough people are informed then they are open to political options not currently viewed as tenable. Adoption of those policies is what will have an actual effect on climate change. But that can't happen until enough people in enough countries change enough hearts and minds.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
The most difficult challenge for climate change is that for most humans their happiness is based on consumption and their drive is fueled by desire for material goods. Most of this consumption and these goods are quickly forgotten and tossed aside for the next crumb. This creates a massive amount of carbon one way or another but this consumption is fundamental to our current economic model. So if someone could figure out and implement a new global economic model to replace GDP/consumption that would help a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
We are seeing a trend of shifting from ownership to renting/sharing. Wherher it'a a result of financial reasons or no space in microcondos to store things, having communities rely on shared goods instead of all those people having the same disused stuff in their basement is a good start. Humans in general prefer to own but with infrequently used items and a well managed share then they get access to items in better shape, newer, maintained and cheaper. Also 2014/2015/2016 now officially top hottest years and all three years in a row.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Turkey is a garbage genocide-denying country but hopefully the US doesn't take inspiration.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration got caught falsifying data ahead of COP 21 in order to push for more radical global austerity measures. quote:The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market[2][3] tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust[4] and published in London.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Some responses to David Rose's piece from people involved. http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2017/02/the-speed-of-entropy.html http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.ca/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?m=1 http://variable-variability.blogspot.ca/2017/02/david-roses-alternative-reality-noaa-Karl.html http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
unnoticed posted:I know the guy, he's totally serious. Unironically believes Scott Pruitt is finally going to get politics out of science.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Chem trails, mind controlling chemicals and conspiracy theories. Yep, mental illness. Anyways, yeah, the jet stream and most processes that determine climate are a result of differentials and gradients; be them temperature, salinity and pressure. Melting of the polar ice caps will greatly decrease relative differences which will greatly undermine the strength of global processes which will largely result in greater temperature extremes. This will particularly cause desertification of middle of the continents. So expect dust bowls in the midwest of North America, central Asia, central Africa, etc. Ocean systems will carry moisture in to the continent, hit a mountain range and basically peter out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:I see that carbon capture technology and I'm confused. I will sound like a simpleton by asking, but why is there not a full scale effort to start funding that/using that now BEFORE we have a massive extinction event? Don't we need to keep those plankton alive in order to keep our atmosphere breathable for us? Even if we can use this technology down the road, doesn't it make sense to use it before the polar ice caps melt and before the reefs die, etc? Because necessity is the mother of innovation and humans are lazy and self serving. Basically because FYGM. Nothing will happen until capital is threatened economically by climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Land ice melting and ocean warming causing thermal expansion. So rising water levels.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Moment a disaster hits I'm robbing a pharmacy for its antivirals, antibiotics and insulin.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:In my personal experience they have secret safe-rooms in their house full of buckets of rice and beans and ammo and batteries, but they have to call people up to get the lighting working right. None of them have anything even nearing consumer-grade HVAC systems which you might want for an end of world scenario - ie filtration, backup replacements and cleaning gear, etc.. I mean I learnt that poo poo working on HOT TUBS as a kid it's not rocket surgery. My wife is possibly going to be helping out a lab in the third world. They booted up a renal transplant program but the patients are dying because they can't accurately assess the anti-rejection steroid levels. All the recipients end up dying from systemic infection due to too much drug. The transplant surgery itself is pretty basic. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Some farmers end up hiring helicopters to hover over their fields to keep frost from forming on their trees.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Slashdot is apparently full of conspiracy theorists and trump voters. Check out the comments on any climate change article - posts about Susan Rice felonies and how CO2 is good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I hope these are all honeypots by the Global AI that's just collecting names for the great culling. Old internet sites where everyone with something better has moved on and where the detritus has remained. Kind of like here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
Lol people are being forced to pay massive insurance premiums that increase every year. Those houses are going to be abandoned after the next flooding event.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:29
|
|