I think it was in Bill Nye's climate change book, but he goes into killing wildlife. Basically yes Wind Turbines, Solar, Microwave, Tidal Harnesses, Hydroelectric all disrupt and/or kill wildlife. The option isn't Renewable or nothing though, it is renewable vs. coal/oil/gas which cause even more wildlife disruption/death. Its harder to measure the effects of ocean acidification vs seeing a dead bird but the acidifcation is a much bigger problem.
I get all that, I just mean that a theoretical continental-US-sized wind farm puts that problem on a whole other order of magnitude. It's not going to be just a few dead birds each year.
Right, it will be more dead birds specifically from windfarms.
And significantly fewer than caused by all currently operating non-renewable options.
This is a weird thing to get worried about during the Sixth Extinction. You're currently drowning, and you're worried that maybe the life preserver would give you a rash.
Buh, just let it drop, please. It was just an off-the-cuff observation that there might be other impacts that need to be considered and taken into account, not a firm statement that it couldn't be done nor that it shouldn't be done. After all, the whole thing's a crazy theoretical that I can't imagine being implemented anyways.
I'd be really curious what sort of impact on global weather patterns there would be if you managed to green up the Sahara. It's my understanding that that region plays a key role in the formation of hurricanes, for example, and if it wasn't a desert at the very least the hurricane pattern would change significantly. Obviously further desertification (I guess that's a word?) is something we'd like to avoid if possible, and I'm pretty sure that a large scale solar installation like was discussed would have the potential to change more than just local weather patterns, I just don't know if we would be able to predict what the outcome would be with any confidence. My gut feeling is that it would improve things overall.
I'd be really curious what sort of impact on global weather patterns there would be if you managed to green up the Sahara. It's my understanding that that region plays a key role in the formation of hurricanes, for example, and if it wasn't a desert at the very least the hurricane pattern would change significantly. Obviously further desertification (I guess that's a word?) is something we'd like to avoid if possible, and I'm pretty sure that a large scale solar installation like was discussed would have the potential to change more than just local weather patterns, I just don't know if we would be able to predict what the outcome would be with any confidence. My gut feeling is that it would improve things overall.
The water that would green it would have to come from somewhere else. I'm not sure what the eastern US would look like if it didn't get any hurricanes, but it'd probably be a lot less green so could be there.
Europe too, but given that the saharan dust events are quite rare here I'm not sure if those are exceptional occurrences or if most of the rain southern Europe gets is the rain that has passed over the desert first.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'd be really curious what sort of impact on global weather patterns there would be if you managed to green up the Sahara. It's my understanding that that region plays a key role in the formation of hurricanes, for example, and if it wasn't a desert at the very least the hurricane pattern would change significantly. Obviously further desertification (I guess that's a word?) is something we'd like to avoid if possible, and I'm pretty sure that a large scale solar installation like was discussed would have the potential to change more than just local weather patterns, I just don't know if we would be able to predict what the outcome would be with any confidence. My gut feeling is that it would improve things overall.
The amount of solar energy coming into the world is massive. If we made a continuous solar panel with todays tech, we're talking 335x335 kilometers to power the world. That's 1% of the Sahara desert.
By comparison, the constant burning of fossil fuels has a far more dire and direct consequence to our planets weather pattern.
There is simply no comparison here.
+4
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
I personally think a Mad Maxian apocalypse is not really realistic. There will be a massive humanitarian disaster in the developing world, and the resulting refugee crisis will be many times worse than what we've seen so far, which will likely trigger a complete authoritarian reflex in the developed world resulting in us literally shooting people trying to cross the border. Massive famines, rising sea levels, and economic collapse will drop global populations. Those who survive will certainly be worse off in a lot of metrics but industry will have moved inland, the internet will still exist, and humanity as a species will just keep trudging on.
You do know that in Mad Max there is a civilization still going on, right? The Mad Maxian apocalypse the movies depict is not the entire world, just the part that did collapse.
Is that clear? I always kind of assumed it was probably worse in Australia because of the isolation, but I don't feel like that's made obvious in the movies.
Also I'm with Ham Ham. Even with a direct collapse we'd set ourselves back like 200 years at most and it would bounce back a lot faster that it took to get here initially. Ideally we'd have less of a population spike and lean into renewables faster on the second go around too.
I thought Australia survived because of the isolation. Northern hemisphere is just part of the Dust or the Glow.
Though the Mad Max scenario is the milder one. The big collapse is losing the supporting ecosystems so survival of anything outside a few deep valleys is moot. We're energy hungry beings, not the kind of stuff that can easily wait for centuries, us surviving with tech is probably just going to doom the fortunate ones
:gives very stern looks at the cat haters:
:makes eyes on you gesture:
I think it’s more simply recognizing that the average housecat is a refined and prolific murder machine if left to its own devices.
Those furry little serial killers will kill like 3 times more than they eat. They do it for fun. Obviously they didn't learn anything from Oregon Trail.
Apparently no impact on local populations though, unless you're next to a nature reserve. Ecological damage from urban areas has already been done, and gardens are rich enough resources for the survivors that populations can grow despite the best efforts of cats.
Housecats are causing more than a few species to go extinct, though.
Housecats? No, not really. At least, there's no research to back it up, despite the panicked flailing of the 'cats kill BILLIONS' silliness that pops back up every few years.
It's usually a combination of cats, rats, and pigs. Speaking as someone that's lived on islands for the last twelve years.
Think he means it's more feral populations rather than the suburban pet cat.
Per the original linked article itself, despite the clickbait title, rodents are number 1.
I'd be really curious what sort of impact on global weather patterns there would be if you managed to green up the Sahara. It's my understanding that that region plays a key role in the formation of hurricanes, for example, and if it wasn't a desert at the very least the hurricane pattern would change significantly. Obviously further desertification (I guess that's a word?) is something we'd like to avoid if possible, and I'm pretty sure that a large scale solar installation like was discussed would have the potential to change more than just local weather patterns, I just don't know if we would be able to predict what the outcome would be with any confidence. My gut feeling is that it would improve things overall.
The amount of solar energy coming into the world is massive. If we made a continuous solar panel with todays tech, we're talking 335x335 kilometers to power the world. That's 1% of the Sahara desert.
By comparison, the constant burning of fossil fuels has a far more dire and direct consequence to our planets weather pattern.
There is simply no comparison here.
Yep and if we had world peace it would most likely already be powering Europe. But due to the geopolitical landscape Sahara solar power for everyone is just a pipedream. We don't want to replace OPEC with a solar equivalent.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
So we were arguing about white roofs and cooling effects earlier, and the conclusion was that 'cool roofs' ironically warm the atmosphere instead.
However, turns out an area of Spain has been accidentally running this experiment since the 1980s. Almeria, an area in southern Spain, got really into greenhouse agriculture around that time. Greenhouses are usually known for keeping the insides warmer, but on the outside, the farmers were using white plastic (and also added some whitening to the roofs during the hottest parts of the summer), and that significantly increased the albedo (reflectiveness) of the region.
Over twenty years, 70% of the coastal plain got covered in greenhouses. And...they had a drop of temperatures of 0.3 degrees C every decade while neighboring regions (and really all others in Spain) showed increases in temperature. They did not have any changes in precipitation, but they were already in a semi-arid place so it might not affect them as much.
So, I'm thinking this is a bit more complicated than what we had been thinking before. There might be some areas where trying to cool the roofs counter-intuitively warms the area, but this seems to indicate pretty strongly that some places could benefit from white roofs. Probably just depends on the region and the conditions. No silver bullet, but a lot of small solutions.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
People were arguing that higher albedo made thing warmer?
People were arguing that higher albedo made thing warmer?
I believe the argument was that a low albedo roof will absorb more heat, while the high albedo roof will reflect more heat into the atmosphere.
Yes, dark roofed areas are warmer than the natural surrounding area, but the thought was that a high albedo area would be even warmer.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, part of the reason why people are freaking out about Climate Change us that it's possible the change in Albedo at the poles has gotten to the point of a positive feedback loop.
I think the theory was that variations in albedo caused turbulence that created clouds that in turn did a better job at reflecting light. That said even if correct, it probably matters what the atmosphere is in that location; If it's pretty arid, clouds may not form anyway, leading to white roofs being a better approach there.
So we were arguing about white roofs and cooling effects earlier, and the conclusion was that 'cool roofs' ironically warm the atmosphere instead.
However, turns out an area of Spain has been accidentally running this experiment since the 1980s. Almeria, an area in southern Spain, got really into greenhouse agriculture around that time. Greenhouses are usually known for keeping the insides warmer, but on the outside, the farmers were using white plastic (and also added some whitening to the roofs during the hottest parts of the summer), and that significantly increased the albedo (reflectiveness) of the region.
Over twenty years, 70% of the coastal plain got covered in greenhouses. And...they had a drop of temperatures of 0.3 degrees C every decade while neighboring regions (and really all others in Spain) showed increases in temperature. They did not have any changes in precipitation, but they were already in a semi-arid place so it might not affect them as much.
So, I'm thinking this is a bit more complicated than what we had been thinking before. There might be some areas where trying to cool the roofs counter-intuitively warms the area, but this seems to indicate pretty strongly that some places could benefit from white roofs. Probably just depends on the region and the conditions. No silver bullet, but a lot of small solutions.
If memory serves from the study, it wasn't that things got hotter where the roofs were (those areas cooled), but that it increased the heat of the areas immediately surrounding where the white roofs were disproportionately (IE your house is cool, but the region heats up). It would be interesting to see a comparison of those areas around the study region compared to similar areas farther away to see if the immediate surroundings were warmed more than the general average for the region.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Its really funny to see the NHTSA making policy on the assumption that Mad Max is prophetic.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
+7
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
edited September 2018
A 2.5 to 4 degrees Celsius increase also makes a 6 degree increase inevitable via emergent, secondary, run-away effects.
And I just don't see humans surviving that, unless we live underground or underwater. ('Busted' were prophets; who knew... :P)
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
We may not be able to prevent devastating climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it.
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
We may not be able to prevent devastating climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it.
I've actually read several credible climate scientists who believe that we passed that window in the last decade. We might be too late to have any effect on the chemical processes already occurring.
Phillishere on
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Man this is really making me reconsider me and my wife's recent decision to have kids. On the other hand who knows what the future holds and all that. Can't really unring the bell at this point anyways.
I guess I'll just have to get the kid really into climate science.
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Giving up is not the solution. Maybe it is your/our solution but it can't be our children's solution. We have to do everything we can and where that isn't enough think of new things to fix this mess.
I suspect this is going to bite them in the ass considering that they already have to fight a lawsuit claiming that the government:
1. Knows about anthropogenic climate change
2. Isn't doing anything about it
3. Is legally required to protect the environment
If anyone is in the mood for a book about climate change that is both kind of fun and debilitatingly depressing I reccomend Barret Baumgart's "China Lake"
Man this is really making me reconsider me and my wife's recent decision to have kids. On the other hand who knows what the future holds and all that. Can't really unring the bell at this point anyways.
I guess I'll just have to get the kid really into climate science.
Not that having kids is on the table for me any time soon but this is certainly my main deterrent.
My father delayed having my sister and I due to the possibility of nuclear annihilation from the Cold War. Now we have the certainty of catastrophic climate change I can nigh guarantee I will never have children. My parents will just have to be happy with another grand puppy.
If anyone is in the mood for a book about climate change that is both kind of fun and debilitatingly depressing I reccomend Barret Baumgart's "China Lake"
How funny, it didn't register until I looked up the book that it was the same place I grew up. Loved the desert, not the people. It was a bit of a black hole. Still I will probably pick it up to see the portrayal. I still fondly remember World War Z's mention of "those sick fucks in China Lake."
I was never going to have kids anyway, so at least that's not a dilemma for me.
Man... if that "by the end of the century" thing is true, and if I live as long as my grandparents did, then it'll be well underway by the time I shuffle off.
It'll be... interesting... to have a front-row seat to this century, that's for sure.
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
We may not be able to prevent devastating climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it.
I've actually read several credible climate scientists who believe that we passed that window in the last decade. We might be too late to have any effect on the chemical processes already occurring.
That doesn't really make sense, it's not an on/off proposition. You're suggesting that it makes no difference to the planet anymore what we do, so we may as well just go hog wild with greenhouse gasses in the time we've got left?
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
We may not be able to prevent devastating climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it.
I've actually read several credible climate scientists who believe that we passed that window in the last decade. We might be too late to have any effect on the chemical processes already occurring.
That doesn't really make sense, it's not an on/off proposition. You're suggesting that it makes no difference to the planet anymore what we do, so we may as well just go hog wild with greenhouse gasses in the time we've got left?
There's feedback effects in the climate. Buried carbon, methane ice, the albedo of the poles, etc. In a worst case scenario those would accelerate things beyond anything we can do.
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
We may not be able to prevent devastating climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it.
I've actually read several credible climate scientists who believe that we passed that window in the last decade. We might be too late to have any effect on the chemical processes already occurring.
That doesn't really make sense, it's not an on/off proposition. You're suggesting that it makes no difference to the planet anymore what we do, so we may as well just go hog wild with greenhouse gasses in the time we've got left?
It's more that there is a point when these chemical processes reinforce each other (rising temperatures release methane while killing the oceanic life that produces the majority of the world's oxygen). The question of human emissions becomes irrelevant because the reactions they have set off are now self sustaining. At which point, we're fucked even we collectively decide to abandon civilization and live like hunter gatherers.
There are some researchers who think we are there.
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
We may not be able to prevent devastating climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it.
I've actually read several credible climate scientists who believe that we passed that window in the last decade. We might be too late to have any effect on the chemical processes already occurring.
That doesn't really make sense, it's not an on/off proposition. You're suggesting that it makes no difference to the planet anymore what we do, so we may as well just go hog wild with greenhouse gasses in the time we've got left?
It's more that there is a point when these chemical processes reinforce each other (rising temperatures release methane while killing the oceanic life that produces the majority of the world's oxygen). The question of human emissions becomes irrelevant because the reactions they have set off are now self sustaining. At which point, we're fucked even we collectively decide to abandon civilization and live like hunter gatherers.
There are some researchers who think we are there.
I see, I certainly can't deny the possibility that we're already looking at the start of an unavoidable extinction event. Who knows. As a species though I think we have to move forward on the assumption that there's hope, and do our best to prevent it. Because the alternative is to make it a guarantee.
+10
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
We may not be able to prevent devastating climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it.
I've actually read several credible climate scientists who believe that we passed that window in the last decade. We might be too late to have any effect on the chemical processes already occurring.
That doesn't really make sense, it's not an on/off proposition. You're suggesting that it makes no difference to the planet anymore what we do, so we may as well just go hog wild with greenhouse gasses in the time we've got left?
It's more that there is a point when these chemical processes reinforce each other (rising temperatures release methane while killing the oceanic life that produces the majority of the world's oxygen). The question of human emissions becomes irrelevant because the reactions they have set off are now self sustaining. At which point, we're fucked even we collectively decide to abandon civilization and live like hunter gatherers.
There are some researchers who think we are there.
I see, I certainly can't deny the possibility that we're already looking at the start of an unavoidable extinction event. Who knows. As a species though I think we have to move forward on the assumption that there's hope, and do our best to prevent it. Because the alternative is to make it a guarantee.
We're looking at the acceleration of a nasty extinction event. It just hasn't threatened us otherwise, because it largely has been us.
I was never going to have kids anyway, so at least that's not a dilemma for me.
Man... if that "by the end of the century" thing is true, and if I live as long as my grandparents did, then it'll be well underway by the time I shuffle off.
It'll be... interesting... to have a front-row seat to this century, that's for sure.
I used to worry I'd die of old age before space colonization really got going.
I'm definitely starting to feel like the Fermi paradox's "Great Filter" is climate change. The factors that are needed for a planet to be hospitable to intelligent life are incredibly specific and very fragile. And the psychological traits that are needed for a species to create a technological civilization are perhaps incompatible with the restraint that is needed to remain in balance with said planet. So maybe there's simply no way for an advanced civilization to survive on their planet long enough to develop interstellar travel.
+6
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
That’s a lot of assumptions, the first one being that the great filter is a real thing.
Also, for those concerned about the above document they published, it's assuming one thing: that NO ONE does anything. Which is admittedly not impossible (particularly with us leading the way ) but also not super likely.
How much CO2 can you sequester with a backyard algae CO2 scrubber?
That's baby level. Sequester CO2 by iron fertilization of the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans. Heck, hire the Japanese whaling fleet to do that instead of killing the whales. Solves their employment problem and helps save the world. But Japan's even worse about being set in the ways of their elderly population that stopped learning thirty years ago than the US.
How much CO2 can you sequester with a backyard algae CO2 scrubber?
That's baby level. Sequester CO2 by iron fertilization of the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans. Heck, hire the Japanese whaling fleet to do that instead of killing the whales. Solves their employment problem and helps save the world. But Japan's even worse about being set in the ways of their elderly population that stopped learning thirty years ago than the US.
Yeah, but a backyard CO2 scrubber is something I can actually do.
Waiting for someone to hire the japanese whaling fleet to spread iron around the 7 seas might as well be wishing for jesus riding a unicorn to fix it for us.
How much CO2 can you sequester with a backyard algae CO2 scrubber?
That's baby level. Sequester CO2 by iron fertilization of the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans. Heck, hire the Japanese whaling fleet to do that instead of killing the whales. Solves their employment problem and helps save the world. But Japan's even worse about being set in the ways of their elderly population that stopped learning thirty years ago than the US.
Yeah, but a backyard CO2 scrubber is something I can actually do.
Waiting for someone to hire the japanese whaling fleet to spread iron around the 7 seas might as well be wishing for jesus riding a unicorn to fix it for us.
I mean, if bitcoin could help us crowd fund one thing..
How much CO2 can you sequester with a backyard algae CO2 scrubber?
That's baby level. Sequester CO2 by iron fertilization of the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans. Heck, hire the Japanese whaling fleet to do that instead of killing the whales. Solves their employment problem and helps save the world. But Japan's even worse about being set in the ways of their elderly population that stopped learning thirty years ago than the US.
Yeah, but a backyard CO2 scrubber is something I can actually do.
Waiting for someone to hire the japanese whaling fleet to spread iron around the 7 seas might as well be wishing for jesus riding a unicorn to fix it for us.
I mean, if bitcoin could help us crowd fund one thing..
How much CO2 can you sequester with a backyard algae CO2 scrubber?
That's baby level. Sequester CO2 by iron fertilization of the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans. Heck, hire the Japanese whaling fleet to do that instead of killing the whales. Solves their employment problem and helps save the world. But Japan's even worse about being set in the ways of their elderly population that stopped learning thirty years ago than the US.
Yeah, but a backyard CO2 scrubber is something I can actually do.
Waiting for someone to hire the japanese whaling fleet to spread iron around the 7 seas might as well be wishing for jesus riding a unicorn to fix it for us.
I mean, if bitcoin could help us crowd fund one thing..
..then you'd maybe make Bitcoin carbon neutral?
I was thinking more in the sense that - hilariously - doing this would be sufficiently illegal as to warrant black market funding.
Posts
Buh, just let it drop, please. It was just an off-the-cuff observation that there might be other impacts that need to be considered and taken into account, not a firm statement that it couldn't be done nor that it shouldn't be done. After all, the whole thing's a crazy theoretical that I can't imagine being implemented anyways.
The water that would green it would have to come from somewhere else. I'm not sure what the eastern US would look like if it didn't get any hurricanes, but it'd probably be a lot less green so could be there.
Europe too, but given that the saharan dust events are quite rare here I'm not sure if those are exceptional occurrences or if most of the rain southern Europe gets is the rain that has passed over the desert first.
The amount of solar energy coming into the world is massive. If we made a continuous solar panel with todays tech, we're talking 335x335 kilometers to power the world. That's 1% of the Sahara desert.
By comparison, the constant burning of fossil fuels has a far more dire and direct consequence to our planets weather pattern.
There is simply no comparison here.
Per the original linked article itself, despite the clickbait title, rodents are number 1.
Yep and if we had world peace it would most likely already be powering Europe. But due to the geopolitical landscape Sahara solar power for everyone is just a pipedream. We don't want to replace OPEC with a solar equivalent.
However, turns out an area of Spain has been accidentally running this experiment since the 1980s. Almeria, an area in southern Spain, got really into greenhouse agriculture around that time. Greenhouses are usually known for keeping the insides warmer, but on the outside, the farmers were using white plastic (and also added some whitening to the roofs during the hottest parts of the summer), and that significantly increased the albedo (reflectiveness) of the region.
Over twenty years, 70% of the coastal plain got covered in greenhouses. And...they had a drop of temperatures of 0.3 degrees C every decade while neighboring regions (and really all others in Spain) showed increases in temperature. They did not have any changes in precipitation, but they were already in a semi-arid place so it might not affect them as much.
So, I'm thinking this is a bit more complicated than what we had been thinking before. There might be some areas where trying to cool the roofs counter-intuitively warms the area, but this seems to indicate pretty strongly that some places could benefit from white roofs. Probably just depends on the region and the conditions. No silver bullet, but a lot of small solutions.
I believe the argument was that a low albedo roof will absorb more heat, while the high albedo roof will reflect more heat into the atmosphere.
Yes, dark roofed areas are warmer than the natural surrounding area, but the thought was that a high albedo area would be even warmer.
If memory serves from the study, it wasn't that things got hotter where the roofs were (those areas cooled), but that it increased the heat of the areas immediately surrounding where the white roofs were disproportionately (IE your house is cool, but the region heats up). It would be interesting to see a comparison of those areas around the study region compared to similar areas farther away to see if the immediate surroundings were warmed more than the general average for the region.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html
Official position of the Trump administration: climate change is real, we're causing it, but we're fucked anyway, so no point in doing anything.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Unlike most Trump positions, there is probably some truth to that.
And I just don't see humans surviving that, unless we live underground or underwater. ('Busted' were prophets; who knew... :P)
We may not be able to prevent devastating climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it.
I've actually read several credible climate scientists who believe that we passed that window in the last decade. We might be too late to have any effect on the chemical processes already occurring.
I guess I'll just have to get the kid really into climate science.
1. Knows about anthropogenic climate change
2. Isn't doing anything about it
3. Is legally required to protect the environment
Not that having kids is on the table for me any time soon but this is certainly my main deterrent.
My father delayed having my sister and I due to the possibility of nuclear annihilation from the Cold War. Now we have the certainty of catastrophic climate change I can nigh guarantee I will never have children. My parents will just have to be happy with another grand puppy.
How funny, it didn't register until I looked up the book that it was the same place I grew up. Loved the desert, not the people. It was a bit of a black hole. Still I will probably pick it up to see the portrayal. I still fondly remember World War Z's mention of "those sick fucks in China Lake."
Man... if that "by the end of the century" thing is true, and if I live as long as my grandparents did, then it'll be well underway by the time I shuffle off.
It'll be... interesting... to have a front-row seat to this century, that's for sure.
That doesn't really make sense, it's not an on/off proposition. You're suggesting that it makes no difference to the planet anymore what we do, so we may as well just go hog wild with greenhouse gasses in the time we've got left?
There's feedback effects in the climate. Buried carbon, methane ice, the albedo of the poles, etc. In a worst case scenario those would accelerate things beyond anything we can do.
It's more that there is a point when these chemical processes reinforce each other (rising temperatures release methane while killing the oceanic life that produces the majority of the world's oxygen). The question of human emissions becomes irrelevant because the reactions they have set off are now self sustaining. At which point, we're fucked even we collectively decide to abandon civilization and live like hunter gatherers.
There are some researchers who think we are there.
I see, I certainly can't deny the possibility that we're already looking at the start of an unavoidable extinction event. Who knows. As a species though I think we have to move forward on the assumption that there's hope, and do our best to prevent it. Because the alternative is to make it a guarantee.
We're looking at the acceleration of a nasty extinction event. It just hasn't threatened us otherwise, because it largely has been us.
I used to worry I'd die of old age before space colonization really got going.
These days I got different worries.
That's baby level. Sequester CO2 by iron fertilization of the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans. Heck, hire the Japanese whaling fleet to do that instead of killing the whales. Solves their employment problem and helps save the world. But Japan's even worse about being set in the ways of their elderly population that stopped learning thirty years ago than the US.
Yeah, but a backyard CO2 scrubber is something I can actually do.
Waiting for someone to hire the japanese whaling fleet to spread iron around the 7 seas might as well be wishing for jesus riding a unicorn to fix it for us.
I mean, if bitcoin could help us crowd fund one thing..
..then you'd maybe make Bitcoin carbon neutral?
I was thinking more in the sense that - hilariously - doing this would be sufficiently illegal as to warrant black market funding.