|
Verge posted:Absolutely but if you're destroying a car at 5k miles, you're a fuckwit. A car is barely broken in at your example of 100k. Be real with me, man, who would do that? You can't wear helmets in cars at least where I live.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
I interviewed with a carbon capture company 8 years ago that claimed it had the first scaleable carbon capture system in the world. They even had a working prototype. I'm not even going to pretend it was possible some other company existed before them either. For any tech journalism you're better off assuming the opposite of what is printed actually happened.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
People are afraid of nuclear because of high media profile events like fukushima Chernobyl and three mile. And also whenever Israel blowd one up in the ME. Green politics have little to do with it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:That's not to say there are no rabidly anti-nuclear greenies. Oh there are, but they don't petition very strongly. At least not in my hippie city, and ive been petitioned about microwaving water kills Bees. People who don't know any better and see the Chernobyl helicopter video on YouTube which says 'everyone in this film and the ones taking the video all died shortly afterwards.' don't need to talk to rabid environmentalists to form a negative opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He specifically pushed for some of those policies. And those policies rock. When I was a kid no restaurant or cafe in the city had outdoor seating next to the sidewalk because it was disgusting outside.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Doesn't work that way. Throw me into the group going to the fifth step from the other side. Except the sci-fi solution, it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's usually how I see stage 5 of climate denialism phrased. I do see it on here a lot too. People don't seem to get this isn't a problem we can abandon. I'm not abandoning the problem, it will be devastating, but it can't be fixed in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm not abandoning the problem, just declaring there's no solution! You can get really angry about it but it still won't change anything. I did retrieval of atmospheric conditions from radar measurement in college, along with some atmospheric modelling. I read quite a bit of climate change papers then, and most have been shown to be too optimistic. Even most of the climate change advocates outside of the actual researchers don't understand how grim the reality is. How most of them celebrated the results of Paris are enough evidence of that. And I'm talking unsolvable in the most ideal conditions, I.e. bring able to turn knobs to directly change output of pollutants. Completely ignoring how people living their daily life in pollution soup do nothing to agitate for change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that you can't see how the world's policy and discussion of climate change has been changing and positively may just because you're jaded or may just be outside of the area you follow. Even the climatologists don't understand the global energy system as well as the energy scientists (who conversely don't understand the climate models as well). Policy and discussion can't be seen in a positive light no matter how heart warming it is if reversing climate change is essentially impossible. I could point out previous binding agreements that have had zero effect on year over year increase in CO2 production, but again, that's not the point. Any further CO2 production above the sink level is essentially added to the atmosphere on a timescale longer than human generations. The whole 'we can't wait for a perfect solution to start to act.' shows you're treating it like some human rights issue where admitting the problem is 90% of the solution - this is a physical problem. It is like celebrating that a doctor has admitted a terminal cancer patient 'has cancer' and can start his road to recovery. I'm not entirely sure how its the same camp as deniers but OK. There is quite a lot that can be done for planning infrastructure, moving groups, etc as biomes change. Unfortunately this doesn't seem too popular in environmentalist circles and the only groups doing it are the energy extractors themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But all of what you said has little impact on reality (I agree with a lot of it). Sure, we should be in a better place, but we're not. So when people declare that any policy action less than perfection isn't meaningful because of the scale of the problem, it isn't exactly a helpful comment and could even make further positive policy action less likely. I'm not talking about perfect policy. You can't policy away physics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:The whole thing is blips. Every running combustion engine is a blip; every moron who throws a plastic bag out the window is a blip. This is about making enough small gestures at once, not making two or three big ones, and it always was. Maybe but that doesn't mean you get to ignore that sequestered CO2 must be stored somewhere permanently and not reused again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:You asked for something that would work even in a wildest-dream scenario, and I gave you one. They're working on scaling up the tech and finding uses for the calcium carbonate it's turned into. You'd need tens of millions of those carbonate things to do what is needed. Just as a comparison the number of Starbucks and McDonald's are in the tens of thousands.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:It's Trabisnikof. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is in some stage of climate change denial. Hey guys we are gonna nullify the effects of this emission impulse injected into a complex system through political action! Impulse response isn't real!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's really the central issue; a poo poo load of Americans despise mass transit and just don't understand that it's actually beneficial. It's more efficient, relieves traffic, and can shorten your commute time if you live in a place where traffic jams up and the transit system isn't awful. Even sitting in traffic is faster than mass transit. Japan has a loving amazing mass transit system but you end up commuting for loving ever. Living by the stations is expensive so you have to transit from a bus to the train to walking - its really easy to end up with a 2 hour commute for not terribly far distances. Using a personal car is a bad choice not because of traffic but because its really expensive. Tax on car ownership is crazy and the tax rises as the car gets older - its really cheap to buy old cars but you pay a lot in yearly tax - and the inspections are severe. All it does is make car ownership into a class thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Getting around Tokyo by Metro is infinitely easier than doing so by car, plus you're not paying > $10/hour for parking. And, it's hard to find a place in central Tokyo that isn't less than a 10 minute walk to the nearest station. Central Tokyo is extremely expensive to live in, usually ranked 1st or 2nd in the world. Everyone I know lives on the outside and has to change lines a few times to get to work (you are insanely lucky if you can ride a direct line) and a lot of the stations that are 'co located' are in reality more than 600m apart. Plus this only really works out for people who can walk easily. Believe me I really like the trains, nothing beats cracking a beer on the train after a meeting, but there's a lot of disadvantages to the system and pretending they don't exist isn't going to get people to agree with huge public works project that are necessary for them. Nevvy Z posted:I somehow think that it would just be worse if they all had cars. Yes, but most people would still love to have one. They don't go carless because of traffic or some sacrifice to the greater good, it's just that it's too expensive. That's the point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:From a policy perspective is there any difference between someone denying Climate Change and someone who is saying all is lost? They both are effectively saying our resources should be spent elsewhere. Yes, absolutely. You can move ill-placed population centers before they move themselves with huge amounts of suffering. You can start storing knowledge in long term capsules so that 1000 years later if everything recovers people can get back to higher standards of living quicker. Artificially conserve species as their habitat disappears. Hell, I'm sure there's a whole lot you can do even if you can't stop the change. Also lol on the "only" 14.5 impact factor comment.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Haha, poo poo. That Goldman Sachs is going to save the world from climate change because capitalism when only 8 years ago they (the whole industry) stumbled into one of the biggest credit crunches in history, even though it is the core business, just for some ultra short term profit while loving over tons of livelihoods is some top tier trolling.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:This is already a distinction between the extraction industry with the financial industry. These pledges are no where near binding. Even if they were, in the US you think their group companies/subsidiaries/overseas groups would cease dirty industry in developing nations? Tangentially, speaking of nations outside the US, China knows exactly how to stop smog from overcoming their most populous cities. It's a daily, immediate impact that affects most citizens, even the elite who live there. Yet they choose not to stop. There is no hope of long term thinking in that kind of system.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Good job refuting something no one said. Profits have been declining because of over supply, which has been intentional to hurt certain producers. Once the price rises again the profits will come back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The Crystal Serenity is basically free and clear at this point, short of running into an iceberg between Baffin Bay and the NYC. One of the polar observing satellites pretty much failed (tons of noise in the receiver) so some of the orgs have stopped releasing data or switched sources. I believe NSIDC is one of those who are greatly affected.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They were trying to rustle up funding for a new one. On top of that, about 4 years ago about 3 observing sats failed in a row on launch. It's hard to not get tinfoil about it but there is a group of people who wish that climatology didn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except that only works if the only reason you aren't having kids is climate. If you are single, too poor, too young, too old, etc then there is absolutely no future emissions avoided. Maybe Exxon can't be undone by a horny teenager but it definitely can by a Benz obsessed Chinese businessman building yet another concrete city with no occupants.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
What worldwide car culture edicts are you thinking of implementing emperor trabinskopf
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:You don't have to wonder about the absolute change in emissions, from the same page: How is moving major pollutants off shore to other countries progress? Like who even makes these country by country normalized graphs? It's complete garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's not what is happening. Most of the climate emissions come from areas like electricity or transportation that you can't export. Seriously? If country A opens factories, it needs new powerplants and more transportation of raw materials to feed it. If country B then starts importing from A it can close factories, reduce workload on powerplants, and needs less transportation. This is such a large area of contention it is unbelievable that someone like you who always posts in this thread doesn't know about it. goo.gl/7qQumW
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:It's a good question. I won't pretend I know the policy minutia, but the evidence so far seems like industries are responding to the incentives in the anticipated direction. For example, British Columbia instituted a province-level carbon tax in 2008 and has since reduced emissions at 3 times the rate of the rest of Canada. Yes but what is the increase in using off shore shipping in international waters that is not counted? You have to count the whole system, regional is meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I mean the big one is they are imposing a treaty that has no mechanism of enforcement. IE they can use political pressure to ensure the treaty is followed overseas while having no larger power checking their own internal progress. Nothing about the Paris agreement was binding, I see it as little more than the developed nations finally admitting that climate change is a thing, but if you think any meaningful impacts came from it I'd love to hear it. Western countries cannot even get good bottom up estimates of emissions and for many gasses top down estimates are used, but by their nature are too late. So forget about enforcement, even grabbing meaningful data from developing countries is impossible. The economic gain from cooking books is too great (or influencing 'approved estimation methodology in legislation to become completely point less)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Nah, look at the Kyoto Protocol to see how comprehensive of a failure any attempt at treaty-based climate change mitigtation is. *is Canada* Oh poo poo is that some oil sands over there, gently caress these key-yoto poo poo we're out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I don't disagree with that and should have been more clear that a carbon tax in 10 years is of course still preferable to none at all. Things can always, always be worse. But there is still a lot of magical thinking going on that beginning efforts now will mean that things are not going to get very bad already. Indeed, at these summits not only should carbon tax frameworks be setup, but also a relief framework. Some agreed upon plan in place when a nearby city collapses to handle the situation, instead of hastily building a fence and chasing refugees down railroad tracks Instead they pretend their carbon tax or X C degree goal is going to avoid any catastrophic result which is not even policy impossible, but physically impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Even if we just burn it, the ability to use carbon neutral electricity to make ethanol we can distribute and use in existing infrastructure to reduce total emissions now while we build out fancier infrastructure would be a viable path forward. So much energy would be needed to capture the carbon, make the catalyst, and produce the ethanol that to make a dent in anything like the current CO2 concentration you would need way more 'carbon neutral' electricity than is available in the near term future. Even just carbon capture is this gigantic knot of a problem without two additional steps on top of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:therein lies the problem with storing nothing but ethanol. other carbon capture ideas involve stuff like making and storing tons of graphite from co2, but of course graphite doesn't store energy, it's only good for removing surplus co2 from the atmosphere. It's not only a problem with storing it, but also capturing it. You'd need somewhere between 10 to 100 times the number of gas stations ever built of that sorbent style capture facilities. And then separating the CO2 from the sorbent uses so much electricity... we don't even generate enough right now let alone using 100% carbon neutral (and while we have sources of carbon neutral electricity existing, they are not completely GHG neutral, which afters when you consider the scale of capturing a whole years' worth of carbon emissions)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
its no big deal posted:One of the most depressing things about this entire election has been that it was never a goddamn issue on the discussion table for MSM and the two candidates on offer. Hey man, don't worry! A bunch of nations met in Paris and agreed to definitely start thinking about a plan that will keep us under a warming target that's already passed! Nothing can go wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
The temperature of the great lakes is actually increasing in November. Its gonna snow a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
You can't really gain meaningful carbon sequestration from forests. Cold area forests don't work at all because they release most of the sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere when the leaves drop and decay. Rainforests work, while they are still maturing. Once the forest is mature is won't take much more carbon because the death rate of old trees and growth of new trees is in equilibrium. If you take away the oceans, deserts, and cold areas there is very little land to reforest and get that one time bonus of trapping carbon into living plants. There are some arguments that the trees naturally sequester a small bit into the ground during their lifetime but the arguments are over the wrong magnitude - maybe a megaton whereas we pump many gigatons into the atmosphere each year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Yeah, I think he's off the mark. The NSIDC graphs for arctic and antarctic sea ice don't match his at all. Seriously? They are measuring two different things. It is even in most of the simple FAQs! http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent Fansy posted:Can we talk about denialists on the other side for a moment, "NTHE" facebook support groups and 2030 doomsday quacks like Guy McPherson - who does a lot of self promotion for a guy who only has a decade or so to live. I think people who rip into people who are 'doomsday' really need to understand better the physical processes, difficulties in making RCP predictions, and even simple things like how much energy is accumulating in the Earth. People who think Paris is good or MoUs are some progress really need to read actual studies (not just graphs) and try a few modeling exercises to understand how bad the situation is. Probably McPherson sends the wrong message but my own feeling is that generally activities are on the wrong side of optimism here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Fansy posted:You want me to run modeling exercises? I'm not a climate scientist. Okay, but the first step is to realize people who dismiss graphs as alarmism because they don't care to take the time to understand them are basically deniers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Whew, I'm glad you weren't being ironic. People really want to ignore that emissions and warming aren't related by some simple equation where X tons of gas equals 0.X C warming in ten years. The way warming works in reality is starting to diverge from their political platform. The end result is attacking people instead of adapting to the reality and concentrating on items that would actually help.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:On the bright side I'm sure we won't touch the 20 billion barrels of oil we just found under Texas, right? Hey man it's cool China has got this. *is China* *revises 10year historical emissions estimates upward by 20% again*
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
The biggest issue for RCP or any other projection is they all somewhat rely on bottom up gathering of data. I.e., we rely on industry and other countries to provide data on how much emissions they have produced - clearly if it benefits them to underreport they will. It doesn't matter how good models are, if you can't get an accurate picture of now, the prediction will be off. Just trying to confirm this reporting is it's own branch of climate science. This is why when people think we can't possibly go worse than RCP8.5 I think they are mad and don't understand the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:We know how much, because businesses and governments keep track of how much they use. This lines up with how much carbon we've put in the atmosphere. Yeah this is nice and all but this is pretty much bullshit. Governments and industries generally under-report emissions and has been demonstrated time and time again, and is one huge reason why many models run in the 90s and 00s under estimated warming. In the US the extractors generally under report. Other countries under report on a national scale (Which is why your 'foreign oil/keeping country safe' argument is strange given the global context of the problem)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 13:15
|
|