As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Climate Change or: Is it hot in here? And cold? And on fire? And Underwater?!

Blackhawk1313Blackhawk1313 Demon Hunter for HireTime RiftRegistered User regular
edited February 2019 in Debate and/or Discourse
Climate change is real everyone. This has been my obvious statement for the day that continues to be prominently denied by people that could actually effect policy change to mitigate it.

When we left off, discussions of EVs were moving along briskly and also melting ice caps are going to make Asia very interesting (read: destabilized) this century.

This thread ostensibly is for the discussion of climate change, its causes, its effects, and what can be done to mitigate it. This thread is not for politics unless explicitly referring to climate-centric policies and legislation.

Onward.

Blackhawk1313 on
«13456

Posts

  • Options
    Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    this seems small relative to the himalayan glacier melt posted at the end of last thread, but another thing: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/05/climate/melting-lake-ice-global-warming.html

    (the actual journal article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0393-5 )

    basically a lot of lakes won't freeze anymore which will be bad for a lot of things ecologically (mm algae blooms)

    poo
  • Options
    VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited February 2019
    Do they go over not just staying unfrozen, but going through multiple freeze and thaw cycles in a single season? Here, the lakes have froze, thawed, refroze, and just went through another small dethaw/freeze cycle again. This cycle, from what I have been told, is expected to trap even more nutrients than if they just stayed unfrozen all winter.

    Veevee on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    There was snow in the Bay area last night.

    Not a lot. Nothing that really stuck, but godsdamn.

  • Options
    DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    I think it snowed in Santa Cruz, which is just insane to me.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    I like to ART
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I think it snowed in Santa Cruz, which is just insane to me.

    I live in Richmond, basically on the bay, and there was snow in my garden and on my car.

  • Options
    ZekZek Registered User regular
    Right now it is 63 degrees in NYC. Less than a week ago it was single digits.

  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    We went from -30 air temp last week with -50's wind chills to 47 yesterday and today is back into the teens. Weather set to cray cray.

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    We went from -30 air temp last week with -50's wind chills to 47 yesterday and today is back into the teens. Weather set to cray cray.

    Same, but with an ice storm probably closing school AGAIN tomorrow.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Proof that global warming is a librul myth, because global warming only ever makes things hotter, not colder (or more volatile)!

    (We're all fucked, aren't we?)

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    AOC's proposal for a Green New Deal got published this morning. Lot of nuanced takes on it. Most of what I've seen find it extremely ambitious and are skeptical of its potential (100% renewable non-nuclear in 10 years? Yeah ok Jan).

    Here's an MIT PhD and Harvard Kennedy School post-doc's take on the proposal, thread:



    Here's a writer for the Economist providing a take on it as well:



    He also has an article laying out some of the potential issues with the proposed plan:

    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/02/07/a-bold-new-plan-to-tackle-climate-change-ignores-economic-orthodoxy

  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    It sounds like a brilliant idea that would work only if all Republicans were suddenly raptured.

    I assume it's an "ask for the moon" start to a conversation.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Pelosi had this to say about it today
    “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    I just read through the bill. I love how ambitious it is. It is the same vision that FDR had for the First New Deal: nationwide mobilization and restructuring to meet the future head-on.

    We'll pay for it the same way we paid for the First New Deal and every goddanged war after that.

    "and the morning stars I have seen
    and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    AOC's proposal for a Green New Deal got published this morning. Lot of nuanced takes on it. Most of what I've seen find it extremely ambitious and are skeptical of its potential (100% renewable non-nuclear in 10 years? Yeah ok Jan).

    Here's an MIT PhD and Harvard Kennedy School post-doc's take on the proposal, thread:



    Here's a writer for the Economist providing a take on it as well:



    He also has an article laying out some of the potential issues with the proposed plan:

    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/02/07/a-bold-new-plan-to-tackle-climate-change-ignores-economic-orthodoxy

    I prefer if they shoot higher than what you would settle for. Better to do that than precompromise like what was happening in the obama era a lot. It is the opening of the negotiation.

  • Options
    38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    Can't they just have their takes in something linked to from twitter? Having trouble finding their main point in a stream of tweets.
    Can't find the point in the linked article because of the paywall.

    I hope its not more of well this doesn't do enough so why bother. Every bit helps from where we are now.

    38thDoE on steam
    🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀🦑🦀
    
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Given the scope of the problem any effort that starts with "what can we pass with the GOP right now" seems fundamentally unserious.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    We went from -30 air temp last week with -50's wind chills to 47 yesterday and today is back into the teens. Weather set to cray cray.

    Same, but with an ice storm probably closing school AGAIN tomorrow.

    Yup same here up to half an inch of ice predicted all schools closed. We are just in the blender of random bad winter crap as we bounce up and down from above freezing to well below it.

  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    It sounds like a brilliant idea that would work only if all Republicans were suddenly raptured.

    I assume it's an "ask for the moon" start to a conversation.

    Exactly ask for the moon and push the conversation back the other direction. You won't get it all but if you start "reasonable" you wind up where we are at now.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Given the scope of the problem any effort that starts with "what can we pass with the GOP right now" seems fundamentally unserious.

    This isn't what most takes treat as the ambitious part.

    What's ambitious about it is restructuring the entire US energy system in 10 years.

    Also I'm personally opposed to climate plans that don't allow for the use of nuclear

  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Given the scope of the problem any effort that starts with "what can we pass with the GOP right now" seems fundamentally unserious.

    AOC even says that she knows it won't pass, the point is that we start talking about it now so when Democrats cut the legs out from under Republicans and get control again we are ready to push for actual change

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Given the scope of the problem any effort that starts with "what can we pass with the GOP right now" seems fundamentally unserious.

    This isn't what most takes treat as the ambitious part.

    What's ambitious about it is restructuring the entire US energy system in 10 years.

    Also I'm personally opposed to climate plans that don't allow for the use of nuclear

    Nuclear in the US has proven unable to build out in a timely fashion. It's not competitive with renewables.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Also I think y'all may have misinterpreted the takes I presented. They're not treating this proposals ambition derisively: they're providing a healthy amount of skepticism toward a rather vague outline.

    Nearly all experts I've read and spoken with think that net-zero emissions is the best way to combat climate change in a quicker path: there's still room for emitting, but it's offset by CCST and renewable energy

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Also I think y'all may have misinterpreted the takes I presented. They're not treating this proposals ambition derisively: they're providing a healthy amount of skepticism toward a rather vague outline.

    Nearly all experts I've read and spoken with think that net-zero emissions is the best way to combat climate change in a quicker path: there's still room for emitting, but it's offset by CCST and renewable energy

    Renewables don't offset emissions. They replace them. So unless you're talking like using solar power to make artificial oil or something I'm not sure how that makes sense.

    And carbon capture has been a disappointment so far.

  • Options
    MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    Carbon capture tech works fine, the problem is that is just costs money, with few to no avenues for economic profit.

    Climeworks I believe already has a dollar per CO2 ton schedule available for their capture process.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Also I think y'all may have misinterpreted the takes I presented. They're not treating this proposals ambition derisively: they're providing a healthy amount of skepticism toward a rather vague outline.

    Nearly all experts I've read and spoken with think that net-zero emissions is the best way to combat climate change in a quicker path: there's still room for emitting, but it's offset by CCST and renewable energy

    Renewables don't offset emissions. They replace them. So unless you're talking like using solar power to make artificial oil or something I'm not sure how that makes sense.

    And carbon capture has been a disappointment so far.

    A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions made in one place in order to offset emissions elsewhere. Like, by definition renewable energy use is a carbon offset. It's mainly just an accounting technique for emissions accounting, but it's still actually a thing. The wikipedia article for example has a good writeup on this for example.

  • Options
    Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    I mean majorly mitigating (preventing more than currently seen is probably a very low probability) the death and despair that is assuredly coming soon due to our currently changing climate is going to require clawing power back from capital.

    That’s the part of this, coming from AOC, that is most promising. Hell fucking yes MFA is a part of a Green Deal, for like 19 great reasons.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Also I think y'all may have misinterpreted the takes I presented. They're not treating this proposals ambition derisively: they're providing a healthy amount of skepticism toward a rather vague outline.

    Nearly all experts I've read and spoken with think that net-zero emissions is the best way to combat climate change in a quicker path: there's still room for emitting, but it's offset by CCST and renewable energy

    Renewables don't offset emissions. They replace them. So unless you're talking like using solar power to make artificial oil or something I'm not sure how that makes sense.

    And carbon capture has been a disappointment so far.

    A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions made in one place in order to offset emissions elsewhere. Like, by definition renewable energy use is a carbon offset. It's mainly just an accounting technique for emissions accounting, but it's still actually a thing. The wikipedia article for example has a good writeup on this for example.

    You can't net-zero with renewable offsetting. You can move the numbers around all you want, but if something is being burned you are not net zero unless that is later removed.

  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    I still don't know why people hate nuclear power so much. This bill wants to transition away from that too. That is bizarro, we need nuclear power to fill the gaps from coal and oil because solar, wind, and water are not perfect sources.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    I still don't know why people hate nuclear power so much. This bill wants to transition away from that too. That is bizarro, we need nuclear power to fill the gaps from coal and oil because solar, wind, and water are not perfect sources.

    Its probably the radiation

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    I still don't know why people hate nuclear power so much. This bill wants to transition away from that too. That is bizarro, we need nuclear power to fill the gaps from coal and oil because solar, wind, and water are not perfect sources.

    https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power
    A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.

    That's a big chunk of why. There is a fair amount of scare mongering around the issue as well but US nuclear plants are giant money pits.

  • Options
    EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    I tentatively support nuclear but I really don't know anything about it or its logistical/infrastructural scaling possibilities. If phoenix-D is saying it's untenable (even with the lengths of mobilization the Green New Deal, say, would aspire to) then I defer to that judgment

    "and the morning stars I have seen
    and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Also I think y'all may have misinterpreted the takes I presented. They're not treating this proposals ambition derisively: they're providing a healthy amount of skepticism toward a rather vague outline.

    Nearly all experts I've read and spoken with think that net-zero emissions is the best way to combat climate change in a quicker path: there's still room for emitting, but it's offset by CCST and renewable energy

    Renewables don't offset emissions. They replace them. So unless you're talking like using solar power to make artificial oil or something I'm not sure how that makes sense.

    And carbon capture has been a disappointment so far.

    A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions made in one place in order to offset emissions elsewhere. Like, by definition renewable energy use is a carbon offset. It's mainly just an accounting technique for emissions accounting, but it's still actually a thing. The wikipedia article for example has a good writeup on this for example.

    You can't net-zero with renewable offsetting. You can move the numbers around all you want, but if something is being burned you are not net zero unless that is later removed.

    I believe your mistaken on your use of terminology. All a facility needs to do to be considered net zero is to offset the energy it intakes with renewable energy sources to the point that it produces as much energy for the grid as it uses.

    At least that's how Dream, who designs net zero buildings, describes it to me. Though I'll admit she's probably dumbing it down for me cause HVAC engineering is kinda boring.

    Sleep on
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    I still don't know why people hate nuclear power so much. This bill wants to transition away from that too. That is bizarro, we need nuclear power to fill the gaps from coal and oil because solar, wind, and water are not perfect sources.

    https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power
    A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.

    That's a big chunk of why. There is a fair amount of scare mongering around the issue as well but US nuclear plants are giant money pits.

    The costs for nuclear power are inflated abit because we build so few of them and we use such outdated technology that the safety protocols that are required are expensive. But even after the investment it's still cheaper than the rest straight out.

    The upfront costs are massive but we don't really have a lot of choice anymore, our planet is becoming uninhabitable for us.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    The last few nuclear buildouts have been disastrous in terms of budget and schedule overruns.

    A big part of that is probably that everyone stopped building nuclear for so long the expertise went and did other things, or retired.

    And of course it suffers from massive NIMBY, especially with bad press like Fukushima.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Eddy wrote: »
    I tentatively support nuclear but I really don't know anything about it or its logistical/infrastructural scaling possibilities. If phoenix-D is saying it's untenable (even with the lengths of mobilization the Green New Deal, say, would aspire to) then I defer to that judgment

    I don't know that it's untenable in general, but the US industry seems bad at their jobs.

  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    There is really no need for the costs to be as high as they are. Modern reactors are very safe in comparison to even fukushima. Fukushima used an active process to shut down the fission process instead of a passive one. So when the tsunami knocked out the generators, it could no longer do its job.

    Fukushima was nearly 40 year old technology too.

    There's also a huge plus in that, when/if we figure out fusion, all that radioactive waste can be used as a potential fuel source.

    This is something we need to figure out. Solar power manufacturing isn't super green and creates a lot of waste and greenhouse gasses too... it's not a great solution for large scale deployment tbh. Maybe for a smaller country but I don't know about something as large as even just Texas.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    There is really no need for the costs to be as high as they are. Modern reactors are very safe in comparison to even fukushima. Fukushima used an active process to shut down the fission process instead of a passive one. So when the tsunami knocked out the generators, it could no longer do its job.

    Fukushima was nearly 40 year old technology too.

    There's also a huge plus in that, when/if we figure out fusion, all that radioactive waste can be used as a potential fuel source.

    This is something we need to figure out. Solar power manufacturing isn't super green and creates a lot of waste and greenhouse gasses too... it's not a great solution for large scale deployment tbh. Maybe for a smaller country but I don't know about something as large as even just Texas.

    Most waste can already be used as fuel, we just don’t. Partly because it isn’t currently cost-competative with using non-recycled fuel, partly because we don’t want everyone in the world building fuel recycling breeder reactors because they can easily be converted to nuclear weapons production.

  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Yeah, other than the nuke stuff I like AOC's plan. I just think it's not doing enough and not in the right ways or areas.

    We should be building solar in areas like texas and arizona though, we need to get off of fossil fuels even without the impending doom of global warming.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    There is really no need for the costs to be as high as they are. Modern reactors are very safe in comparison to even fukushima. Fukushima used an active process to shut down the fission process instead of a passive one. So when the tsunami knocked out the generators, it could no longer do its job.

    Fukushima was nearly 40 year old technology too.

    There's also a huge plus in that, when/if we figure out fusion, all that radioactive waste can be used as a potential fuel source.

    This is something we need to figure out. Solar power manufacturing isn't super green and creates a lot of waste and greenhouse gasses too... it's not a great solution for large scale deployment tbh. Maybe for a smaller country but I don't know about something as large as even just Texas.

    ...what? Fusion needs very light fuel. I'm not aware of any fission reactions that spit out hydrogen or helium in usable quantity. Anything heavier than iron is useless for fusion, and you want much closer to hydrogen than iron for peak efficiency.

    Regardless of the need for costs to be high,they are. And it isn't really regulation doing that. It's contractor fuck ups.

    And loosening regulation and cost is how we *got* Fukashima. There was another closer reactor that did fine. But Fukashima cut costs..

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue

    Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable

This discussion has been closed.