I pointed out earlier in the thread that China is currently building twenty new nuclear plants with plans to have them finished by 2020, . China also has been designing new reactors that can be sold pre-built for export. Again, China is the one facing practical reality and doing something about it while the west dawdles.
That's more of a feature of being an undemocratic, totalitarian state though. It's the same reason why Russia's rolling out cheap, useful armored vehicles five years out from the word go while we're stuck with trillion dollar boondoggles fifteen years on. Democracy is not good at doing things quickly.
I pointed out earlier in the thread that China is currently building twenty new nuclear plants with plans to have them finished by 2020, . China also has been designing new reactors that can be sold pre-built for export. Again, China is the one facing practical reality and doing something about it while the west dawdles.
That's more of a feature of being an undemocratic, totalitarian state though. It's the same reason why Russia's rolling out cheap, useful armored vehicles five years out from the word go while we're stuck with trillion dollar boondoggles fifteen years on. Democracy is not good at doing things quickly.
Our peculiar military appropriations process isn't the best comparison.
China's nuclear plant thing is definitely more apt. Best way to defeat NIMBYism, ironically, is to create a democratically unaccountable body that can tell NIMBYists to sit and spin.
Problem being sometimes NIMBY's have valid concerns on health and safety instead of just not wanting their property value to go down (which has been the bad excuse for all kinds of stuff, up to enforcing de facto segregation).
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."
I think the oil companies have a better view than that.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."
I think the oil companies have a better view than that.
I don't think any of the major oil companies publicly deny AGW.
They also all invest a decent sum in renewable research, though if you're cynical it is because they want to tie up anything groundbreaking in patent cases for 20 years.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."
I think the oil companies have a better view than that.
I don't think any of the major oil companies publicly deny AGW.
They also all invest a decent sum in renewable research, though if you're cynical it is because they want to tie up anything groundbreaking in patent cases for 20 years.
More that they still want to be king of the hill even when coal and oil (as non-plastic sources) are dead.
+4
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
His position on the matter has been public for some time, going all the way back to his tenure as Oklahoma AG.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."
I think the oil companies have a better view than that.
I don't think any of the major oil companies publicly deny AGW.
They also all invest a decent sum in renewable research, though if you're cynical it is because they want to tie up anything groundbreaking in patent cases for 20 years.
More that they still want to be king of the hill even when coal and oil (as non-plastic sources) are dead.
Also they literally cannot find any competent scientists or engineers to do work for them if they deny it. If you can understand an aspect of science well enough to prospect an oil field through computer simulation, or design a fracking chemical injection profile, then you can understand that climate science is settled. We're to blame, it's CO2 for the most part, there may be some solar driving forces making it WORSE, but that just means we need to work harder on controlling CO2, not that we can step back.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."
I think the oil companies have a better view than that.
I don't think any of the major oil companies publicly deny AGW.
They also all invest a decent sum in renewable research, though if you're cynical it is because they want to tie up anything groundbreaking in patent cases for 20 years.
More that they still want to be king of the hill even when coal and oil (as non-plastic sources) are dead.
Also they literally cannot find any competent scientists or engineers to do work for them if they deny it. If you can understand an aspect of science well enough to prospect an oil field through computer simulation, or design a fracking chemical injection profile, then you can understand that climate science is settled. We're to blame, it's CO2 for the most part, there may be some solar driving forces making it WORSE, but that just means we need to work harder on controlling CO2, not that we can step back.
Ohh I know plenty of very competent engineers, who are more than willing to let their biases overwhelm the evidence.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."
I think the oil companies have a better view than that.
I don't think any of the major oil companies publicly deny AGW.
They also all invest a decent sum in renewable research, though if you're cynical it is because they want to tie up anything groundbreaking in patent cases for 20 years.
More that they still want to be king of the hill even when coal and oil (as non-plastic sources) are dead.
Also they literally cannot find any competent scientists or engineers to do work for them if they deny it. If you can understand an aspect of science well enough to prospect an oil field through computer simulation, or design a fracking chemical injection profile, then you can understand that climate science is settled. We're to blame, it's CO2 for the most part, there may be some solar driving forces making it WORSE, but that just means we need to work harder on controlling CO2, not that we can step back.
Ohh I know plenty of very competent engineers, who are more than willing to let their biases overwhelm the evidence.
Then they are not competent, since 'letting your biases overwhelm the evidence' renders you incompetent at all tasks.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
+12
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I'm tempted to just buy a cave and live in it for the rest of my life. These are dark times and the US just doubled down on lies. How bad has it gotten that China's climate policy is the sane and rational one?
I'm tempted to just buy a cave and live in it for the rest of my life. These are dark times and the US just doubled down on lies. How bad has it gotten that China's climate policy is the sane and rational one?
My plan is to win the lottery and build a hobbit home hidden away into one of the many hills around here. I have a gut feeling that the Wisconsin climate is going to be fine, so as long as I can stay hidden I'll stay safe.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
Methane also clears quickly, only lasting a year or two in the environment. So, there is very little ability for methane to accumulate. If Methane was the problem, and we aren't dead now, then the situation could only really get worse linearly and we would have plenty of time to respond. Since CO2 is the problem, and it hangs around for centuries, we have very little time to address the situation aggressively.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
You're thinking small potatoes. Just wait until we thaw out all the frozen methane. Then we'll really light this firecracker.
Remember folks, the EPA has to protect up from the dangerous environment. Species are dying off to sabotage the sterling reputation of all-American energy companies. We gotta get them before those bad hombres get us!
Remember folks, the EPA has to protect up from the dangerous environment. Species are dying off to sabotage the sterling reputation of all-American energy companies. We gotta get them before those bad hombres get us!
Actually what's funny is that because of a federal court ruling the EPA is legally obligated to regulate CO2 emissions in relation to climate change.
In 2009, the E.P.A. released a legal opinion known as an endangerment finding concluding that, because of its contribution to global warming, carbon dioxide in large amounts met the Clean Air Act’s definition of a pollutant that harms human health. Under the terms of the Clean Air Act, one of the nation’s most powerful environmental laws, all such pollutants must be regulated by the E.P.A. A federal court upheld the finding, and the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to it.
Thus the E.P.A. remains obligated to regulate carbon dioxide.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
You're thinking small potatoes. Just wait until we thaw out all the frozen methane. Then we'll really light this firecracker.
Yeah. I try to stay optimistic, but the permafrost thing has me pretty close to believing we're fucked.
Remember folks, the EPA has to protect up from the dangerous environment. Species are dying off to sabotage the sterling reputation of all-American energy companies. We gotta get them before those bad hombres get us!
Actually what's funny is that because of a federal court ruling the EPA is legally obligated to regulate CO2 emissions in relation to climate change.
In 2009, the E.P.A. released a legal opinion known as an endangerment finding concluding that, because of its contribution to global warming, carbon dioxide in large amounts met the Clean Air Act’s definition of a pollutant that harms human health. Under the terms of the Clean Air Act, one of the nation’s most powerful environmental laws, all such pollutants must be regulated by the E.P.A. A federal court upheld the finding, and the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to it.
Thus the E.P.A. remains obligated to regulate carbon dioxide.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
Actually no you shouldn't only look at the atmospheric lifetime of a gas. Methane is a much more potent (captures more heat) greenhouse gas.
To have a single metric the global warming potential was developed.
CO2 has a global warming potential of 1. Methane has a GWP of 25-36 depending on who you ask. 1 ton of methane is 25 to 36 times more potent over a hundred year period than CO2.
So stopping the emission of 1 ton of methane is the same as stopping the emission of 25-36 tons of CO2.
Dirtmuncher on
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Methane also clears quickly, only lasting a year or two in the environment.
If I remember right scientists are working on an anti-methane vaccine for cows and sheep, so "livestock emissions" doesn't even hold up as an excuse any longer.
Methane also clears quickly, only lasting a year or two in the environment.
If I remember right scientists are working on an anti-methane vaccine for cows and sheep, so "livestock emissions" doesn't even hold up as an excuse any longer.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
You're thinking small potatoes. Just wait until we thaw out all the frozen methane. Then we'll really light this firecracker.
Yes, if Siberia gets majorly thawed, it's likely the end for almost all of us. Then there's the clathrates.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
You're thinking small potatoes. Just wait until we thaw out all the frozen methane. Then we'll really light this firecracker.
Yes, if Siberia gets majorly thawed, it's likely the end for almost all of us. Then there's the clathrates.
Methane is clearly awful, but its also a 'now' effect. The methane we made over the last few years is in the environment causing warming right now. So, the world is as warm as the methane we have made over the last few years is going to make it. We'll make new Methane, likely a little bit more, but the old Methane will go away and the increase in the effect will be small.
Since we are still alive now, and if it got a little bit hotter we'd still be alive, if Methane is the problem we can respond more incrementally. We just need to produce less Methane than we did say, 2 years ago, and the world will start cooling back down. Since we made plenty of methane 2 years ago, we thus have a big responsive lever that we wouldn't need to pull very far. Methane as the driving problem could likely be handled by local governments, and corporations. It would create bad effects today, and you could make them go away 'tomorrow' (from a governmental perspective) with changes to your emissions pattern.
But Methane isn't the big problem. We make so much less of it than we do CO2 that it's not a big lever. It's responsive, and sensitive, but not strong. CO2 leads the pack by a mile, and since it stays up there so long we need to compare our emissions to levels multiple decades ago (at least) We then need to WAIT for decades with a low level of emissions for things to cool down. So the CO2 lever is not very responsive, not very sensitive, but the only strong lever we have. CO2 requires international cooperation, since it will create terrible effects in 30 years, and you can make those changes go away in 80 years with changes to your emmissions pattern starting today and maintained continuously for 100 years.
Now, we can strengthen the CO2 lever with massive reforestation, ocean fertilization plans or other crazier stuff (install giant floating mirrors on the sea, or in space over the poles, or do some kind of enormous CO2 capture plan with crazy future tech), but you still have to pull that lever ALL the damn way back, decades before you see a major problem, and hold it there for decades AFTER there was only a minor problem in order to get back to normal.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Now, we can strengthen the CO2 lever with massive reforestation, ocean fertilization plans or other crazier stuff (install giant floating mirrors on the sea, or in space over the poles, or do some kind of enormous CO2 capture plan with crazy future tech)
How would you prevent scratches to the space-mirrors? Or is it just a matter of stopping the Sun from shining on the poles?
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
You're thinking small potatoes. Just wait until we thaw out all the frozen methane. Then we'll really light this firecracker.
Yes, if Siberia gets majorly thawed, it's likely the end for almost all of us. Then there's the clathrates.
Methane is clearly awful, but its also a 'now' effect. The methane we made over the last few years is in the environment causing warming right now. So, the world is as warm as the methane we have made over the last few years is going to make it. We'll make new Methane, likely a little bit more, but the old Methane will go away and the increase in the effect will be small.
Since we are still alive now, and if it got a little bit hotter we'd still be alive, if Methane is the problem we can respond more incrementally. We just need to produce less Methane than we did say, 2 years ago, and the world will start cooling back down. Since we made plenty of methane 2 years ago, we thus have a big responsive lever that we wouldn't need to pull very far. Methane as the driving problem could likely be handled by local governments, and corporations. It would create bad effects today, and you could make them go away 'tomorrow' (from a governmental perspective) with changes to your emissions pattern.
But Methane isn't the big problem. We make so much less of it than we do CO2 that it's not a big lever. It's responsive, and sensitive, but not strong. CO2 leads the pack by a mile, and since it stays up there so long we need to compare our emissions to levels multiple decades ago (at least) We then need to WAIT for decades with a low level of emissions for things to cool down. So the CO2 lever is not very responsive, not very sensitive, but the only strong lever we have. CO2 requires international cooperation, since it will create terrible effects in 30 years, and you can make those changes go away in 80 years with changes to your emmissions pattern starting today and maintained continuously for 100 years.
Now, we can strengthen the CO2 lever with massive reforestation, ocean fertilization plans or other crazier stuff (install giant floating mirrors on the sea, or in space over the poles, or do some kind of enormous CO2 capture plan with crazy future tech), but you still have to pull that lever ALL the damn way back, decades before you see a major problem, and hold it there for decades AFTER there was only a minor problem in order to get back to normal.
This is mostly accurate. The thing is Siberia and the undersea clarates contain a shit ton of methane that could be released in a positive feedback loop, leading to a massive tempature spike over a very short period. It's one of the theories for the mass extinction that started the Triassic.
Now, we can strengthen the CO2 lever with massive reforestation, ocean fertilization plans or other crazier stuff (install giant floating mirrors on the sea, or in space over the poles, or do some kind of enormous CO2 capture plan with crazy future tech)
How would you prevent scratches to the space-mirrors? Or is it just a matter of stopping the Sun from shining on the poles?
Well, space mirrors are the wackiest plan, but yes, as you said. They would just need to be 'in the way' of the sun shining on the poles. Probably they would just be giant clouds of pebbles strategically placed in orbit to lower solar intensity. It's a seriously future tech thing though.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
Well until the temp gets high enough and enough tundra area and ocean bottom starts thawing and then we could be in for some serious fun. I saw an intersting video of the area near those big sink holes in siberia where they were sticking a stick with a lighter on the end of it below the snow and lighting it and it basically erupts into a blow torch. CO2 is getting the ball rolling but once it starts heading down hill we are quickly running out of room to stop it before things really get out of hand.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
I thought it was cow farts?
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
You're thinking small potatoes. Just wait until we thaw out all the frozen methane. Then we'll really light this firecracker.
Yes, if Siberia gets majorly thawed, it's likely the end for almost all of us. Then there's the clathrates.
Methane is clearly awful, but its also a 'now' effect. The methane we made over the last few years is in the environment causing warming right now. So, the world is as warm as the methane we have made over the last few years is going to make it. We'll make new Methane, likely a little bit more, but the old Methane will go away and the increase in the effect will be small.
Since we are still alive now, and if it got a little bit hotter we'd still be alive, if Methane is the problem we can respond more incrementally. We just need to produce less Methane than we did say, 2 years ago, and the world will start cooling back down. Since we made plenty of methane 2 years ago, we thus have a big responsive lever that we wouldn't need to pull very far. Methane as the driving problem could likely be handled by local governments, and corporations. It would create bad effects today, and you could make them go away 'tomorrow' (from a governmental perspective) with changes to your emissions pattern.
But Methane isn't the big problem. We make so much less of it than we do CO2 that it's not a big lever. It's responsive, and sensitive, but not strong. CO2 leads the pack by a mile, and since it stays up there so long we need to compare our emissions to levels multiple decades ago (at least) We then need to WAIT for decades with a low level of emissions for things to cool down. So the CO2 lever is not very responsive, not very sensitive, but the only strong lever we have. CO2 requires international cooperation, since it will create terrible effects in 30 years, and you can make those changes go away in 80 years with changes to your emmissions pattern starting today and maintained continuously for 100 years.
Now, we can strengthen the CO2 lever with massive reforestation, ocean fertilization plans or other crazier stuff (install giant floating mirrors on the sea, or in space over the poles, or do some kind of enormous CO2 capture plan with crazy future tech), but you still have to pull that lever ALL the damn way back, decades before you see a major problem, and hold it there for decades AFTER there was only a minor problem in order to get back to normal.
This is mostly accurate. The thing is Siberia and the undersea clarates contain a shit ton of methane that could be released in a positive feedback loop, leading to a massive tempature spike over a very short period. It's one of the theories for the mass extinction that started the Triassic.
Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later. If you went on a 15 year space mission, with no communication and the methane catastrophe occured in year 1 you'd come back to find everyone dead and be wondering "What the goose happened"
Now, we can strengthen the CO2 lever with massive reforestation, ocean fertilization plans or other crazier stuff (install giant floating mirrors on the sea, or in space over the poles, or do some kind of enormous CO2 capture plan with crazy future tech)
How would you prevent scratches to the space-mirrors? Or is it just a matter of stopping the Sun from shining on the poles?
Well, space mirrors are the wackiest plan, but yes, as you said. They would just need to be 'in the way' of the sun shining on the poles. Probably they would just be giant clouds of pebbles strategically placed in orbit to lower solar intensity. It's a seriously future tech thing though.
Solar shades. You just need it to be big enough to cover the area, but not necessarily to blot out all incoming light. How much open weave cloth can we make out of aramid fibers in a year?
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I would avoid investing in beach front property for a while... Monsanto is going to make a killing though. ConAgra as well.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Monsanto is going to make a killing though. ConAgra as well.
? I thought the unpredictable weather that climate change brings on is bad for farmers
And the way to deal with that is to buy GMO seeds.
And Monsanto is investing 100s of millions of dollars in drought resistant strains. They have a drought tolerant corn that is being used in test areas now.
Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later.
Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?
Posts
Our peculiar military appropriations process isn't the best comparison.
China's nuclear plant thing is definitely more apt. Best way to defeat NIMBYism, ironically, is to create a democratically unaccountable body that can tell NIMBYists to sit and spin.
Problem being sometimes NIMBY's have valid concerns on health and safety instead of just not wanting their property value to go down (which has been the bad excuse for all kinds of stuff, up to enforcing de facto segregation).
EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
He added, "I was not paid to say this by the oil companies, I swear."
I think the oil companies have a better view than that.
I don't think any of the major oil companies publicly deny AGW.
They also all invest a decent sum in renewable research, though if you're cynical it is because they want to tie up anything groundbreaking in patent cases for 20 years.
More that they still want to be king of the hill even when coal and oil (as non-plastic sources) are dead.
His position on the matter has been public for some time, going all the way back to his tenure as Oklahoma AG.
Also they literally cannot find any competent scientists or engineers to do work for them if they deny it. If you can understand an aspect of science well enough to prospect an oil field through computer simulation, or design a fracking chemical injection profile, then you can understand that climate science is settled. We're to blame, it's CO2 for the most part, there may be some solar driving forces making it WORSE, but that just means we need to work harder on controlling CO2, not that we can step back.
Ohh I know plenty of very competent engineers, who are more than willing to let their biases overwhelm the evidence.
Then they are not competent, since 'letting your biases overwhelm the evidence' renders you incompetent at all tasks.
IIRC, methane is stronger on a per volume basis but it is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of CO2 that is put into the air by human activity.
My plan is to win the lottery and build a hobbit home hidden away into one of the many hills around here. I have a gut feeling that the Wisconsin climate is going to be fine, so as long as I can stay hidden I'll stay safe.
Methane also clears quickly, only lasting a year or two in the environment. So, there is very little ability for methane to accumulate. If Methane was the problem, and we aren't dead now, then the situation could only really get worse linearly and we would have plenty of time to respond. Since CO2 is the problem, and it hangs around for centuries, we have very little time to address the situation aggressively.
The big thing is methane has a much shorter tail; CO2 stays up there a lot longer. So if you're looking at what's adjusting the thermostat of the planet, you're looking at something like CO2.
You're thinking small potatoes. Just wait until we thaw out all the frozen methane. Then we'll really light this firecracker.
Actually what's funny is that because of a federal court ruling the EPA is legally obligated to regulate CO2 emissions in relation to climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/us/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-global-warming.html?_r=0
Yeah. I try to stay optimistic, but the permafrost thing has me pretty close to believing we're fucked.
You can regulate something without reducing it. Though I suspect the court would not take kindly to word games on that particular point.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
Actually no you shouldn't only look at the atmospheric lifetime of a gas. Methane is a much more potent (captures more heat) greenhouse gas.
To have a single metric the global warming potential was developed.
CO2 has a global warming potential of 1. Methane has a GWP of 25-36 depending on who you ask. 1 ton of methane is 25 to 36 times more potent over a hundred year period than CO2.
So stopping the emission of 1 ton of methane is the same as stopping the emission of 25-36 tons of CO2.
A lot of it is changing feed sources, too.
http://www.sciencealert.com/adding-seaweed-to-cattle-feed-could-reduce-methane-production-by-70
Yes, if Siberia gets majorly thawed, it's likely the end for almost all of us. Then there's the clathrates.
Methane is clearly awful, but its also a 'now' effect. The methane we made over the last few years is in the environment causing warming right now. So, the world is as warm as the methane we have made over the last few years is going to make it. We'll make new Methane, likely a little bit more, but the old Methane will go away and the increase in the effect will be small.
Since we are still alive now, and if it got a little bit hotter we'd still be alive, if Methane is the problem we can respond more incrementally. We just need to produce less Methane than we did say, 2 years ago, and the world will start cooling back down. Since we made plenty of methane 2 years ago, we thus have a big responsive lever that we wouldn't need to pull very far. Methane as the driving problem could likely be handled by local governments, and corporations. It would create bad effects today, and you could make them go away 'tomorrow' (from a governmental perspective) with changes to your emissions pattern.
But Methane isn't the big problem. We make so much less of it than we do CO2 that it's not a big lever. It's responsive, and sensitive, but not strong. CO2 leads the pack by a mile, and since it stays up there so long we need to compare our emissions to levels multiple decades ago (at least) We then need to WAIT for decades with a low level of emissions for things to cool down. So the CO2 lever is not very responsive, not very sensitive, but the only strong lever we have. CO2 requires international cooperation, since it will create terrible effects in 30 years, and you can make those changes go away in 80 years with changes to your emmissions pattern starting today and maintained continuously for 100 years.
Now, we can strengthen the CO2 lever with massive reforestation, ocean fertilization plans or other crazier stuff (install giant floating mirrors on the sea, or in space over the poles, or do some kind of enormous CO2 capture plan with crazy future tech), but you still have to pull that lever ALL the damn way back, decades before you see a major problem, and hold it there for decades AFTER there was only a minor problem in order to get back to normal.
This is mostly accurate. The thing is Siberia and the undersea clarates contain a shit ton of methane that could be released in a positive feedback loop, leading to a massive tempature spike over a very short period. It's one of the theories for the mass extinction that started the Triassic.
Well, space mirrors are the wackiest plan, but yes, as you said. They would just need to be 'in the way' of the sun shining on the poles. Probably they would just be giant clouds of pebbles strategically placed in orbit to lower solar intensity. It's a seriously future tech thing though.
Well until the temp gets high enough and enough tundra area and ocean bottom starts thawing and then we could be in for some serious fun. I saw an intersting video of the area near those big sink holes in siberia where they were sticking a stick with a lighter on the end of it below the snow and lighting it and it basically erupts into a blow torch. CO2 is getting the ball rolling but once it starts heading down hill we are quickly running out of room to stop it before things really get out of hand.
Yes, but it wouldn't be Methane build up that gives us Siberia and Undersea Clarate mega methane release. It would be CO2 buildup, which then led to a world ending event over the next 2 years when the Clarates released their Methane. And then things would be pretty much back to normal atmospheric gases wise a few years later. If you went on a 15 year space mission, with no communication and the methane catastrophe occured in year 1 you'd come back to find everyone dead and be wondering "What the goose happened"
Solar shades. You just need it to be big enough to cover the area, but not necessarily to blot out all incoming light. How much open weave cloth can we make out of aramid fibers in a year?
And the way to deal with that is to buy GMO seeds.
They know what's up, and where things are headed.
Why would everyone be dead? All the plants die or something?
No, the problem is that Monsanto is evil.