Pinatubo in 1991 actually cancelled out all the empirically confirmed global warming of the time and brought temperatures below the long term average for three years and is still cited by climate change deniers to this day. Pinatubo today would bring us back to about 2005 temperatures.
The Little Ice Age and Great Famine of 1315 are both linked to major eruptions. Tambora caused winter conditions to continue straight through in 1815, and Laki did the same thing in Iceland to the point that the whole island was almost abandoned.
Krakatoa takes the prize, even before the proper eruption when it started smoking it created the snowiest winter on record for every continent that kept records in the 1880's, and many of those record still stand today (and those that have fallen have not done so in sweeping global events but locally powerful blizzards). Then a few months later it exploded and it broke that record three years in a row.
The Great Dying was triggered by a supervolcano of almost Venusian proportions - lava flows from it covered an area almost the size of the continental US and it likely buried the entire world in ash to a depth of 50-100 cm. For comparison, all the known supervolcanoes in the world today combined could not produce an eruption that severe. It also didn't produce the warming event immediately, but after an extended global winter.
Pinatubo in 1991 actually cancelled out all the empirically confirmed global warming of the time and brought temperatures below the long term average for three years and is still cited by climate change deniers to this day. Pinatubo today would bring us back to about 2005 temperatures.
The Little Ice Age and Great Famine of 1315 are both linked to major eruptions. Tambora caused winter conditions to continue straight through in 1815, and Laki did the same thing in Iceland to the point that the whole island was almost abandoned.
Krakatoa takes the prize, even before the proper eruption when it started smoking it created the snowiest winter on record for every continent that kept records in the 1880's, and many of those record still stand today (and those that have fallen have not done so in sweeping global events but locally powerful blizzards). Then a few months later it exploded and it broke that record three years in a row.
Well yeah, but if you want a result for more than a year or two you are going to need that kind of eruption every two or three years, which is supervolcano levels of activity. And every one of those volcanic eruptions is dumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which is going to make things worse when the smoke clears and the dust settles.
Edit: I mean even if you can control it somehow, is saying “you can have another 5 or 10 thousand years of industrial society at the cost of a massive biospheric collapse afterwards” really worth it?
Indoor and compact farming are a piece of the future, but not the whole thing. As terrible as Monsanto was, companies like it have consolidated the amount of land and resources need to grow staple crops like corn by nearly 90%. I remember back in 2018 attending a panel held by NASA, Monsanto, and half dozen smaller companies where they discussed how the last two decades have improved crop yields. It was insane. NASA, and many of the smaller companies, are all in on indoor farmling like what you pictured there as its what would be needed for space/colony food production but what they have found is, so long as your water supply remains constant, it can be pretty effective for a large number of otherwise unshrinkable crop plots. Everyone agreed, though, that desalination technology and implementation was the next big hurdle for all of these systems to be workable at scale. Part of the point of the panel was to attract interest in biology and chemistry jobs in food production, and pretty much every one of the panel members concurred that bio-engineering foodstuffs, desalination engineering, and applications of photonics are the big jobs of the next two decades to throw your hat into as someone interesting in maintaining or entering the agricultural industries.
The robot is for outdoor use, but the picture is from their test facility.
PS The rest of your posts were very interesting.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
edited October 2020
I watched a very well researched video about this just the other day. TL:DR Don't try to cool the planet by spraying shit into the atmosphere.
The Matrix is actually a post climate change movie about the machines desperately trying to clean up the planet while their creators sleep. They've turned the earth into a seedbank/generation ship.
Conservative environmentalists tend to focus on obvious quality of life issues like getting rid of smog and river pollution. Stuff that affects us now, today rather than in 10-20 years and doesn't challenge theologians.
Great. I'm at least that, meaning I could reasonably use the E word on myself and be correct. That's ... deeply weird, actually! But I can adapt to it.
I'm probably a bit further along even. I told my liberal friend for years I liked the word "sustainability" because I felt like it better described my position... like if "sustainablism" was a word, I'd probably call myself that.
Like a lumber company would be moronic to go buy a forest, and then cut literally every tree down. Yeh sure, they'd have tons of product that year, but then what? You instead cut 1% each year, and you can run that business for a thousand years if you want. That's just common sense, right?
Not if the profit margins on clear-cutting the whole thing are large enough that you can just buy the next plot over and do the same thing. Even better if it's allowed on public lands since then you don't have to pay anything, it's pure profit (minus labor and equipment costs). Which much conservative policy is to exploit public lands at much was possible while whining about "the government", see those ranchers a few years back grazing on public lands and avoiding the minimal fees for doing so and then occupying that national park in protest.
Smrtnik on
+7
Options
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Conservative environmentalists tend to focus on obvious quality of life issues like getting rid of smog and river pollution. Stuff that affects us now, today rather than in 10-20 years and doesn't challenge theologians.
Great. I'm at least that, meaning I could reasonably use the E word on myself and be correct. That's ... deeply weird, actually! But I can adapt to it.
I'm probably a bit further along even. I told my liberal friend for years I liked the word "sustainability" because I felt like it better described my position... like if "sustainablism" was a word, I'd probably call myself that.
Like a lumber company would be moronic to go buy a forest, and then cut literally every tree down. Yeh sure, they'd have tons of product that year, but then what? You instead cut 1% each year, and you can run that business for a thousand years if you want. That's just common sense, right?
Not if the profit margins on clear-cutting the whole thing are large enough that you can just buy the next plot over and do the same thing. Even better if it's allowed on public lands since then you don't have to pay anything, it's pure profit (minus labor and equipment costs). Which much conservative policy is to exploit public lands at much was possible while whining about "the government", see those ranchers a few years back grazing on public lands and avoiding the minimal fees for doing so and then occupying that national park in protest.
I've recently become interested in Georgism because of stuff like that, though I can't really say yet if I actually support it as a modern policy idea or not, because most folks that talked about it were describing it in the context the fundamentally unrecognizably small economy and government that was around in the 1800's. Right now it's just a quirky historical economic idea I'm studying... like the battle between gold and silver standards, or the emergence of antitrust laws.
But I am strongly opposed to private companies directly profiting off the unsustainable exploitation of public natural resources without appropriate compensation to the public at large for what they have taken. And also just unsustainable exploitation of natural resources in general, as mentioned before, on the basis of common sense and long term thinking.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
Pinatubo in 1991 actually cancelled out all the empirically confirmed global warming of the time and brought temperatures below the long term average for three years and is still cited by climate change deniers to this day. Pinatubo today would bring us back to about 2005 temperatures.
The Little Ice Age and Great Famine of 1315 are both linked to major eruptions. Tambora caused winter conditions to continue straight through in 1815, and Laki did the same thing in Iceland to the point that the whole island was almost abandoned.
Krakatoa takes the prize, even before the proper eruption when it started smoking it created the snowiest winter on record for every continent that kept records in the 1880's, and many of those record still stand today (and those that have fallen have not done so in sweeping global events but locally powerful blizzards). Then a few months later it exploded and it broke that record three years in a row.
Well yeah, but if you want a result for more than a year or two you are going to need that kind of eruption every two or three years, which is supervolcano levels of activity. And every one of those volcanic eruptions is dumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which is going to make things worse when the smoke clears and the dust settles.
Edit: I mean even if you can control it somehow, is saying “you can have another 5 or 10 thousand years of industrial society at the cost of a massive biospheric collapse afterwards” really worth it?
Depends on whether you think extraplanetary colonization is a viable path forward, I guess. Didn't Stephen Hawking say the industrial revolution was essentially a bet that we could get off this planet before we render it uninhabitable, or something along those lines?
Pinatubo in 1991 actually cancelled out all the empirically confirmed global warming of the time and brought temperatures below the long term average for three years and is still cited by climate change deniers to this day. Pinatubo today would bring us back to about 2005 temperatures.
The Little Ice Age and Great Famine of 1315 are both linked to major eruptions. Tambora caused winter conditions to continue straight through in 1815, and Laki did the same thing in Iceland to the point that the whole island was almost abandoned.
Krakatoa takes the prize, even before the proper eruption when it started smoking it created the snowiest winter on record for every continent that kept records in the 1880's, and many of those record still stand today (and those that have fallen have not done so in sweeping global events but locally powerful blizzards). Then a few months later it exploded and it broke that record three years in a row.
Well yeah, but if you want a result for more than a year or two you are going to need that kind of eruption every two or three years, which is supervolcano levels of activity. And every one of those volcanic eruptions is dumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which is going to make things worse when the smoke clears and the dust settles.
Edit: I mean even if you can control it somehow, is saying “you can have another 5 or 10 thousand years of industrial society at the cost of a massive biospheric collapse afterwards” really worth it?
Depends on whether you think extraplanetary colonization is a viable path forward, I guess. Didn't Stephen Hawking say the industrial revolution was essentially a bet that we could get off this planet before we render it uninhabitable, or something along those lines?
It pretty much is. You have to either leave the planet or develop enough technology to be able to sustain high-tech and high-energy living without destroying the environment. Fossil fuels are the only high density energy source that is both easy to obtain and to use. Of course we now know there's nowhere to go and no way to get there even if there was
It's also essentially a one-time bet. If civilization collapsed long enough for the knowledge and tools to decay so you couldn't just re-establish what we have now quickly, all the easy ore, oil and coal deposits have been consumed and won't replenish for a long, long time
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Point of order. Coal will never replenish. All the world's coal deposits date back to before bacteria and other microorganisms were able of breaking down cellulose and lignin. Basically proto-trees would die, fall over and just keep building up until the whole lot was covered and turned to rock. Now that nature can break down trees, she will never make coal again.
Point of order. Coal will never replenish. All the world's coal deposits date back to before bacteria and other microorganisms were able of breaking down cellulose and lignin. Basically proto-trees would die, fall over and just keep building up until the whole lot was covered and turned to rock. Now that nature can break down trees, she will never make coal again.
While it's true that that decay process will dramatically slow it, it's not like coal formation completely stopped in recent periods. There are coal deposits dated from layers as young as 60 million years
I wrote a whole paragraph thinking you were talking about fertilizer. I am aware of nitrogen rich ag runnoff causing things like oxygen depletion, toxic algea blooms, etc.
Woops.
I was not aware we still had any problems with pesticides. Like, other than Roundup/Monsanto chaotic evil nonsense, I thought this was a solved problem, since the only other one I thought was a problem was good old DDT.
edit: I'm totally a "This planet could support 100 billion humans if we just didn't act like idiots and let half the food grown on the planet rot on the way to market" kind of guy.
But... I'm obviously also not very well educated on these matters.
Speaking of ddt, the la times just did a big article about a whole shit ton of ddt barrels sitting off the coast of california slowly leaching ddt into the water for decades
Yeah, if I could only make one, narrow policy to address the US carbon footprint it might just be to replace all property tax with land value tax. I'm not sure if that would have the biggest impact in improving the built environment here quickly, but it'd have to be high on the list.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The acting chief scientist at NOAA just got replaced with a Cato Institute climate change denier. It is definitely an attack on doing actual very needed science and meteorology right now, but that might be an added bonus (as right-wing thinking goes) rather than the full intent. Trump's Razor: the stupidest possible solution is most likely the correct one.
The acting chief scientist at NOAA just got replaced with a Cato Institute climate change denier. It is definitely an attack on doing actual very needed science and meteorology right now, but that might be an added bonus (as right-wing thinking goes) rather than the full intent. Trump's Razor: the stupidest possible solution is most likely the correct one.
From that whole “small fingered vulgarian” thing where he kept mailing a journalist for like years (decades?) after an article making fun of him, what he may lack in object permanence he makes up for in a nigh-superhuman ability to hold a grudge for any sleight, real or perceived (or made up from whole cloth).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
If we are fortunate enough to win this election, and take control of congress and the presidency, Executive order #1 needs to be...
"No Trump appointee is allowed to fire anyone in a federal agency, and no-one hired by them is allowed to fire anyone either. All staffing decisions shall be routed to the most senior employee who was not appointed by Donald Trump"
one of our very very numerous bill #1's needs to be.
"If you were appointed to a position at a federal agency by Donald Trump, then you are dismissed. You are immediately replaced on a temporary basis by most senior person below you who is not ALSO dismissed by this bill. You may reapply without prejudice for your position. The following staff members are exempt from this...
Blah
Blah
Blah"
Usually you don't do this because the appointed staff members of the previous administration provide valuable transition assistance and you want many of them to retain. The cost of the 'bad actors' who would be swiftly removed by a clean cut like the above is outweighed by the good people it would lose. But today, all Trumps appointees are maliciious idiots and every day they stay on the job is bad and there is nothing to learn from them.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+3
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
A new UN report says the world is heading for 3 degrees celsius of warming, despite the pandemic. And that is on average, which doesn't really indicate how much warmer the polar regions will get.
A new UN report says the world is heading for 3 degrees celsius of warming, despite the pandemic. And that is on average, which doesn't really indicate how much warmer the polar regions will get.
A new UN report says the world is heading for 3 degrees celsius of warming, despite the pandemic. And that is on average, which doesn't really indicate how much warmer the polar regions will get.
By when
Probably a lot sooner than any scientist is willing to predict
August mean sea surface temperatures in 2020 were ~1-3°C warmer than the 1982-2010 August mean over most of the Arctic Ocean, with exceptionally warm temperatures in the Laptev and Kara seas that coincided with the early loss of sea ice in this region.
There is a bit of good news because of this mess though
During July and August 2020, regional ocean primary productivity in the Laptev Sea was ~2 times higher for July and ~6 times higher for August compared to their respective monthly averages.
Bowhead whales have been a staple resource for coastal Indigenous peoples for millennia and are uniquely adapted for the arctic marine ecosystem. The Pacific Arctic population size has increased in the past 30 years likely due to increases in ocean primary production and northward transport of the zooplankton they feed on.
A new UN report says the world is heading for 3 degrees celsius of warming, despite the pandemic. And that is on average, which doesn't really indicate how much warmer the polar regions will get.
By when
Probably a lot sooner than any scientist is willing to predict
August mean sea surface temperatures in 2020 were ~1-3°C warmer than the 1982-2010 August mean over most of the Arctic Ocean, with exceptionally warm temperatures in the Laptev and Kara seas that coincided with the early loss of sea ice in this region.
There is a bit of good news because of this mess though
During July and August 2020, regional ocean primary productivity in the Laptev Sea was ~2 times higher for July and ~6 times higher for August compared to their respective monthly averages.
Bowhead whales have been a staple resource for coastal Indigenous peoples for millennia and are uniquely adapted for the arctic marine ecosystem. The Pacific Arctic population size has increased in the past 30 years likely due to increases in ocean primary production and northward transport of the zooplankton they feed on.
The poles have been warming faster, this has been known for a while. Also that's cherry picking your data.
A new UN report says the world is heading for 3 degrees celsius of warming, despite the pandemic. And that is on average, which doesn't really indicate how much warmer the polar regions will get.
By when
Probably a lot sooner than any scientist is willing to predict
August mean sea surface temperatures in 2020 were ~1-3°C warmer than the 1982-2010 August mean over most of the Arctic Ocean, with exceptionally warm temperatures in the Laptev and Kara seas that coincided with the early loss of sea ice in this region.
There is a bit of good news because of this mess though
During July and August 2020, regional ocean primary productivity in the Laptev Sea was ~2 times higher for July and ~6 times higher for August compared to their respective monthly averages.
Bowhead whales have been a staple resource for coastal Indigenous peoples for millennia and are uniquely adapted for the arctic marine ecosystem. The Pacific Arctic population size has increased in the past 30 years likely due to increases in ocean primary production and northward transport of the zooplankton they feed on.
The poles have been warming faster, this has been known for a while. Also that's cherry picking your data.
Yes it's warming faster, but it's also faster than predictions have said would happen.
And generally in Earth's history, what happens at the poles is a precursor to what happens in the rest of the world.
The Trump administration finalized a rule Wednesday that could make it more difficult to enact public health protections, by changing the way the Environmental Protection Agency calculates the costs and benefits of new limits on air pollution.
Hopefully the next administration realizes you are never going to reach coal miners and actively works to kill the industry completely. It needs to go, it is nothing but an enormous burden on the environment and our society. I worked in the industry for 8 years, and I know people still working in it, but it needs to die.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
A new UN report says the world is heading for 3 degrees celsius of warming, despite the pandemic. And that is on average, which doesn't really indicate how much warmer the polar regions will get.
Do you have a link?
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
A new UN report says the world is heading for 3 degrees celsius of warming, despite the pandemic. And that is on average, which doesn't really indicate how much warmer the polar regions will get.
Posts
The Little Ice Age and Great Famine of 1315 are both linked to major eruptions. Tambora caused winter conditions to continue straight through in 1815, and Laki did the same thing in Iceland to the point that the whole island was almost abandoned.
Krakatoa takes the prize, even before the proper eruption when it started smoking it created the snowiest winter on record for every continent that kept records in the 1880's, and many of those record still stand today (and those that have fallen have not done so in sweeping global events but locally powerful blizzards). Then a few months later it exploded and it broke that record three years in a row.
The Great Dying was triggered by a supervolcano of almost Venusian proportions - lava flows from it covered an area almost the size of the continental US and it likely buried the entire world in ash to a depth of 50-100 cm. For comparison, all the known supervolcanoes in the world today combined could not produce an eruption that severe. It also didn't produce the warming event immediately, but after an extended global winter.
Well yeah, but if you want a result for more than a year or two you are going to need that kind of eruption every two or three years, which is supervolcano levels of activity. And every one of those volcanic eruptions is dumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which is going to make things worse when the smoke clears and the dust settles.
Edit: I mean even if you can control it somehow, is saying “you can have another 5 or 10 thousand years of industrial society at the cost of a massive biospheric collapse afterwards” really worth it?
The robot is for outdoor use, but the picture is from their test facility.
PS The rest of your posts were very interesting.
So I should stop eating beans or...?
Tell that to hippos.
Maybe treat them like sapient individuals instead of abusing them? Maybe DON'T nuke their only city?
The whales. Gotta nuke something.
Not if the profit margins on clear-cutting the whole thing are large enough that you can just buy the next plot over and do the same thing. Even better if it's allowed on public lands since then you don't have to pay anything, it's pure profit (minus labor and equipment costs). Which much conservative policy is to exploit public lands at much was possible while whining about "the government", see those ranchers a few years back grazing on public lands and avoiding the minimal fees for doing so and then occupying that national park in protest.
I've recently become interested in Georgism because of stuff like that, though I can't really say yet if I actually support it as a modern policy idea or not, because most folks that talked about it were describing it in the context the fundamentally unrecognizably small economy and government that was around in the 1800's. Right now it's just a quirky historical economic idea I'm studying... like the battle between gold and silver standards, or the emergence of antitrust laws.
But I am strongly opposed to private companies directly profiting off the unsustainable exploitation of public natural resources without appropriate compensation to the public at large for what they have taken. And also just unsustainable exploitation of natural resources in general, as mentioned before, on the basis of common sense and long term thinking.
Depends on whether you think extraplanetary colonization is a viable path forward, I guess. Didn't Stephen Hawking say the industrial revolution was essentially a bet that we could get off this planet before we render it uninhabitable, or something along those lines?
It pretty much is. You have to either leave the planet or develop enough technology to be able to sustain high-tech and high-energy living without destroying the environment. Fossil fuels are the only high density energy source that is both easy to obtain and to use. Of course we now know there's nowhere to go and no way to get there even if there was
It's also essentially a one-time bet. If civilization collapsed long enough for the knowledge and tools to decay so you couldn't just re-establish what we have now quickly, all the easy ore, oil and coal deposits have been consumed and won't replenish for a long, long time
Oh come on snow piercer was a great movie.
No it wasn't!
While it's true that that decay process will dramatically slow it, it's not like coal formation completely stopped in recent periods. There are coal deposits dated from layers as young as 60 million years
Speaking of ddt, the la times just did a big article about a whole shit ton of ddt barrels sitting off the coast of california slowly leaching ddt into the water for decades
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground/
It's much better when viewed as a sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
This applies to every movie
Yeah, if I could only make one, narrow policy to address the US carbon footprint it might just be to replace all property tax with land value tax. I'm not sure if that would have the biggest impact in improving the built environment here quickly, but it'd have to be high on the list.
The previous acting chief scientist at NOAA had called out that fucking sharpie drawing on the Hurricane Dorian forecast map. Trump barely has object permanence and still held this stupidest of petty grudges for a year, trying for revenge. And took a year to do it because he's also just the laziest, stupidest fucker.
Well, he also sent the Trumpie leading NOAA a thing on scientific ethics, because that's part of his job.
And since Trump appointees react to ethics like vampires react to garlic..
"No Trump appointee is allowed to fire anyone in a federal agency, and no-one hired by them is allowed to fire anyone either. All staffing decisions shall be routed to the most senior employee who was not appointed by Donald Trump"
one of our very very numerous bill #1's needs to be.
"If you were appointed to a position at a federal agency by Donald Trump, then you are dismissed. You are immediately replaced on a temporary basis by most senior person below you who is not ALSO dismissed by this bill. You may reapply without prejudice for your position. The following staff members are exempt from this...
Blah
Blah
Blah"
Usually you don't do this because the appointed staff members of the previous administration provide valuable transition assistance and you want many of them to retain. The cost of the 'bad actors' who would be swiftly removed by a clean cut like the above is outweighed by the good people it would lose. But today, all Trumps appointees are maliciious idiots and every day they stay on the job is bad and there is nothing to learn from them.
By when
Probably a lot sooner than any scientist is willing to predict
https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2020
There is a bit of good news because of this mess though
The poles have been warming faster, this has been known for a while. Also that's cherry picking your data.
Yes it's warming faster, but it's also faster than predictions have said would happen.
And generally in Earth's history, what happens at the poles is a precursor to what happens in the rest of the world.
Trump EPA finalizes rollback making it harder to enact new public health rules
Hopefully the next administration realizes you are never going to reach coal miners and actively works to kill the industry completely. It needs to go, it is nothing but an enormous burden on the environment and our society. I worked in the industry for 8 years, and I know people still working in it, but it needs to die.
Do you have a link?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I'm guessing it's this one
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/wall-street-begins-trading-water-futures-as-a-commodity
There's no way allowing Wall Street do this could go wrong
*shoves Enron out of sight*