|
Fox Cunning posted:When was the earth as it is supposed to be? There is no "correct" climate but the average historical temperature is a hell of a lot hotter than it is right now.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:There is no "correct" climate but the average historical temperature is a hell of a lot hotter than it is right now. If there's no correct climate, it can't really be incorrect can it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:If there's no correct climate, it can't really be incorrect can it? I didn't say that it was. I said that the current climate is not normal in an historical context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:They are both happenening together. The ice age is not over yet - the ice is still melting. Antartica is supposed to be covered in rain forest. That's how hot the planet is supposed to be. Look at the historical record. The environment we live in today is not normal. True, the continent of Antartica did at some point some sort of vegetation that some would describe as forested. Of course, that was back when the continent itself was above the tropic of capricorn. When you decide to time travel again back to that time, make sure you bring your own supply of air. Speaking of Antartica, one of the big exciting events was the drilling down to the subglacial great lake Vostok. Some early estimates suggest that the lake may have existed in its subglacial state for over 15 million years. What sorts of microbial life forms that exist underneath could prove to be a treasure trove of biological data. Twisted Perspective posted:There is no "correct" climate but the average historical temperature is a hell of a lot hotter than it is right now. Of course, that is true as well. If I am not mistaken, 4 billion years ago the surface of the earth was a caladra of molten iron, steam, and gaseous vapours, so that skews the median somewhat. I should point out - the climate back then was not exactly the kind of environment a Homo Sapien could comfortably live in. When you decide to revisit that time period, make sure you bring your own air supply, food, pressurised suit, hover unit AND, most importantly - bring a heat exchanger. Guigui fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Aug 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Guigui posted:True, the continent of Antartica did at some point some sort of vegetation that some would describe as forested. Of course, that was back when the continent itself was above the tropic of capricorn. When you decide to time travel again back to that time, make sure you bring your own supply of air. Thank you. That's a much better reply. quote:Speaking of Antartica, one of the big exciting events was the drilling down to the subglacial great lake Vostok. Some early estimates suggest that the lake may have existed in its subglacial state for over 15 million years. What sorts of microbial life forms that exist underneath could prove to be a treasure trove of biological data. I'm more interested in what happens after global warming. The ancient species like the insects and the reptiles have billions of years worth of dormant genes in their DNA from when the planet was a lot hotter. When temperatures rise enough at least some of those genes in some of those species are going to switch back on and they will start to mutate and evolve into several new species. Any thoughts on that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:I didn't say that it was. I said that the current climate is not normal in an historical context. In how long of earth's 4.5 billion year history has a more tropical climate been the norm then? For all we know the climate of Earth might be relatively cold for the rest of its existance, making this the norm. My point is that the Earth is and constanstly has been changing. Saying that it is supposed to be one way because it was before makes no sense. Hell, the migrating continents alone has changed the climate profoundly throughout history, not to mention the ever evolving life on earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:In how long of earth's 4.5 billion year history has a more tropical climate been the norm then? For all we know the climate of Earth might be relatively cold for the rest of its existance, making this the norm. You keep talking about one way or the other. I'm talking about historical averages. Also, please see my post above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:You keep talking about one way or the other. I'm talking about historical averages. For most of Earth's history it has not had an oxygenated atmosphere, is it therefore not supposed to have one?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:My point is that the Earth is and constanstly has been changing. Saying that it is supposed to be one way because it was before makes no sense. I'm saying it's not "supposed" to be any way. Climactic stability is a huge boon for the human race and a ton of the things we rely on. We can plant crops in the same places every year. Biodiversity steadily increases. It's not incorrect for us to rapidly change the climate and trigger massive feedback loops at unprecedented rates, it's just stupid/suicidal. Fox Cunning posted:For most of Earth's history it has not had an oxygenated atmosphere, is it therefore not supposed to have one? This doesn't make any sense
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:For most of Earth's history it has not had an oxygenated atmosphere, is it therefore not supposed to have one? Well on average... Also on average humans need to be extinct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:For most of Earth's history it has not had an oxygenated atmosphere, is it therefore not supposed to have one? What? I honestly don't know where you're getting this from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:What? I honestly don't know where you're getting this from. As you know, Oxygen is a biproduct of photosynthesis. Oxygen, being a reactive substance, ends up depleting over time as it is chemically transformed into different substances. In a nutshell, iron uses oxygen to rust - fire uses Oxygen to burn, and so forth. In order for there to be levels of oxygen in the atmosphere, it has to be created somehow - and in levels abundant enough so that it does not deplete over time. That is what makes Earth so unique - plant life converts Carbon Dioxide and Water, and uses it to create cellulose and Oxygen. The other thing about Oxygen - you need a certain amount of it to sustain life forms that use it - but you cannot have too much. As the early Apollo missions demonstrated, too much oxygen has deadly consequences when a fire spreads out. The more oxygen, the hotter, faster and brighter the fire burns, until all is consumed. Hence, this is what makes Earth so unique at this point in time. We exist in a very, very, very short period of time on this planet where the levels of oxygen, nitrogen and other gasses are just at the right point that allow for large, complex lung systems (Mammals) to exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
quote:This last page has made me pour a few stiff drinks. What, if anything, can we do at this point? We've started something that can't possibly be stopped even if we magically make all our emissions vanish tomorrow. Pretty much, yes. This was my favorite way of having it described: We were standing on the roof of a skyscraper, and Our Biggest Fan! was encouraging us to try and leap to grab the moon. "You'll be famous! You'll be fabulously wealthy! It's made of pure white gold!" A few decent people tried to warn us not to jump, that we couldn't grab the moon and that we'd almost certainly kill ourselves trying. But Our Biggest Fan! told us that those people were jealous shills, liars & fools, reminded us about how badly we could use all of that pure white gold and made the task sound so easy. "It's right there in front of you! You just have to jump! Jumping isn't dangerous; you've jumped thousands of times before! Maybe even millions of times! You'll land on your feet a triumphant legend, with the night's own eye in your hands!" So, we're now about halfway to the pavement, empty-handed, sometimes angrily denying that anything has gone wrong and clawing at the prize we were promised, sometimes flapping our arms in desperation while acknowledging that we're in terrible distress but refusing to accept that there is no remedy for a 400 meter long freefall, and sometimes crying for comfort as the total nature of the wickedness & stupidity confronts us. I'm not an academic, but I talk with a lot of academics, and none of them think that human beings will somehow 'pull through' the coming century, unfortunately. Everyone I know who has serious expertise on the matter thinks that the idea of even a 4 or 6 degree future is a joke; 10-15 degrees is more in the right ballpark for the immediate future (100~ years or so), with the temperature climbing well beyond any sort of tolerances for life after that due to feedback loops (the 'end game' feedback being increased water evaporation that becomes a self-sustaining force).
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
Yeah that was a meaningless argument... But I do believe that it is impossible to state that the Earth is supposed to be a certain way, which I base on the knowledge that the Earth has been constantly changing and not reverting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:Yeah that was a meaningless argument... But I do believe that it is impossible to state that the Earth is supposed to be a certain way, which I base on the knowledge that the Earth has been constantly changing and not reverting. Well, enjoy arguing against a viewpoint that nobody really holds. Nobody is saying that there is a magic equilibrium point that is "correct" for the earth. What we're saying is there's a magical equilibrium point that is the best case for the survival and prosperity of the human race and that we are actively pushing the climate out of that point. The fact that things change doesn't mean there isn't an ideal state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:In my opinion climate change is unstoppable. Historically speaking the earth has always been a hot and tropical planet (see the dinosaurs). It just so happens that we're emerging from the tail end of a catastrophic ice age that wiped out 90% of life on earth and its going to get a lot hotter before the planet returns to its natural tropical state. What catastrophic ice age wiped out 90% of life on earth? They only one I can think of that comes near is the 'Snowball Earth' one, and that was more than 650 million years ago. All vertebrae, life on land and dinosaurs were later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:If there's no correct climate, it can't really be incorrect can it? The universe is neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. - Carl Sagan. Earth doesn't care if our civilization collapses and we go extinct, so I guess we don't have to address climate change at all. Are you really this retarded?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Guigui posted:As you know, Oxygen is a biproduct of photosynthesis. Oxygen, being a reactive substance, ends up depleting over time as it is chemically transformed into different substances. In a nutshell, iron uses oxygen to rust - fire uses Oxygen to burn, and so forth. In order for there to be levels of oxygen in the atmosphere, it has to be created somehow - and in levels abundant enough so that it does not deplete over time. You completely miss the point. Fox Cunning posted:For most of Earth's history it has not had an oxygenated atmosphere, is it therefore not supposed to have one? This is completely and utterly wrong. The planet has existed for 4.6 billion years and has had oxygen in its atmosphere for 3.8 billion years. That constitutes the majority of its existence. There's a nice little chart here that illustrates the point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:You completely miss the point. ca. 2.5 billion years per your reference, actually, but still a majority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:Yeah that was a meaningless argument... But I do believe that it is impossible to state that the Earth is supposed to be a certain way, which I base on the knowledge that the Earth has been constantly changing and not reverting. Henceforth we should translate "the way earth is supposed to be" into meaning: Earth the way humans can live on it in vast numbers comfortably. Who cares what the averages were, or how earth was in the past? During much of that time humans weren't around to care, and I think the point is that we want to continue to be around to care. Up above The Ender said that in the next 100 years we might be looking at a 10 to 15 degree temperature increase. I'd like to read some sources to that because the most I've seen is the lower number of like 2-6 degree in the next century. Here's a post by a local(to me) UW weather dude that refutes the NASA dudes paper thats been talked about a lot the past week or so and does so pretty intelligently and he also has claimed in this and multiple times in the past that he isn't a denier. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Aug 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
quote:Who cares what the averages were, or how earth was in the past? During much of that time humans weren't around to care, and I think the point is that we want to continue to be around to care. Up above The Ender said that in the next 100 years we might be looking at a 10 to 15 degree temperature increase. I'd like to read some sources to that because the most I've seen is the lower number of like 2-6 degree in the next century. The NOAA measurements for CO2 concentration were about 391.5~ PPM for 2011. Here are the various trend models used by the IPCC - and bear in mind, the IPCC's numbers are optimistic:  We're not 'on track' for the A1B model, which what we need to trend with if we wanted to aim for a 'mere' 2-6 degree increase. And, rather than reducing our output, we're actually increasing our output - and we're doing so much more rapidly than any of these pretty 'tame' models calculates for. The worst case model, A1Fl (which is considered an end-game, extinction-level scenario, by the way), is what we're most closely tracking to right now - and that one suggests 5-6 degrees worth of warming by 2100, and we can assume that things only get worse from there due to feedback. I certainly couldn't say for sure that there's nothing we could do to turn things around, but I can say that it's almost certain we won't do anything even if we could. EDIT: quote:Here's a post by a local(to me) UW weather dude that refutes the NASA dudes paper thats been talked about a lot the past week or so and does so pretty intelligently and he also has claimed in this and multiple times in the past that he isn't a denier. No offense, but is there a particular reason I should trust an article published on a private blog more than an article published in the peer reviewed literature? One obvious problem that even my layman eyes can spot right away is that the gentleman is treating climate as a simple linear system. It's not. The mean global temperature changes are very small, but the local temperature impacts can be absolutely massive in some cases. The Ender fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Aug 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:You may find some consolation in the thought that, if you're posting on SA, you're probably rich enough not to suffer like the global poor will, and you'll probably be senile or dead before the worst of it. I'm only in my 20s and not wealthy at all, though compared to much of the world it's true that I'm in one of the better positions. Even so, I think pretty much everyone is going to be badly affected by climate change. My state is currently considered a disaster area because of the ongoing drought here and in other Midwestern states, and these droughts are only going to become more intense and common in the future. Food and water is going to become ever more scarce, and everyone needs those things, no matter how wealthy they are. I really don't want to see millions of people suffer, but if things don't change that's going to happen. Since it's clear that we're probably not going to reduce emissions enough to avoid extremely dangerous climate change, geoengineering is almost certainly going to be attempted in the future. I mentioned things like aerosols, iron fertilization, and direct capture before. People posted earlier about the dangers of aerosols, but what do you all think about the feasibility of the other two options? I'm not very familiar with iron fertilization, but I found an article about directly capturing CO2 in the atmosphere that seemed interesting: http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/research-shows-feasibility-for-capturing-co2-from-air/ This technology could be used to not only directly capture CO2 from power plants, but also from the atmosphere itself. A unit the size of a shipping container could remove a thousand tons of CO2 a year, at a cost of approximately $100 per ton. I assume the amount of CO2 removed, as well as cost per ton, could be improved with more research and development in the field. It seems like we're going to have to develop safer technologies such as this if we wish to avoid damaging the environment further with risky geoengineering techniques like aerosols.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
The Ender posted:The NOAA measurements for CO2 concentration were about 391.5~ PPM for 2011.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Twisted Perspective posted:I'm more interested in what happens after global warming. The ancient species like the insects and the reptiles have billions of years worth of dormant genes in their DNA from when the planet was a lot hotter. When temperatures rise enough at least some of those genes in some of those species are going to switch back on and they will start to mutate and evolve into several new species. Any thoughts on that? Any genes that have been dormant for millions of years will be gibberish by now due to lack of selection pressure + genetic drift- there's a reason they call it junk DNA. The biggest source of new forms in the coming millenia will be species taking advantage of all the ecological niches whose previous inhabitants we've displaced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Man I can't wait for the history books 100 years from now that will try to comprehend how there could have been so much political inaction in the face of absolute disaster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
quote:This is a great selection of charts - where did you get them from? I'd love to be able to find something like this in higher resolution, or ideally with annotations explaining what the differences in each model are (if it can be dumbed down to layperson-speak). It's from the 4th Assessment Report from the IPCC. All of the reports can be found here, while that specific chart can be found in high resolution right here. Note that I do not recommend reading these reports without a tall glass of brandy to keep you company on on the journey. They are a rigorous mathematical landscape of the failures of our species. quote:Man I can't wait for the history books 100 years from now that will try to comprehend how there could have been so much political inaction in the face of absolute disaster. I hope that someone is still in such circumstances that they could write such a book in 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Man I can't wait for the history books 100 years from now that will try to comprehend how there could have been so much political inaction in the face of absolute disaster. Honestly I think looking at all the people who knew how big of an issue this was and yet continued about their daily lives will be more amazing. Most people simply aren't aware. But what's your excuse when you knew all along but you didn't put every fiber of your being towards stopping it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
I dunno, I think the psychology behind this kind of counterproductive behaviour is fairly well understood even today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:But what's your excuse when you knew all along but you didn't put every fiber of your being towards stopping it? Futility? I don't know what all we can do as individuals beyond spreading awareness and making it clear to as many people as we can how dire things are in hope that once enough people look reality straight in the face that then there may finally be a tipping point. Sure, I try to make the personal changes to reduce my carbon footprint, but I am inconsequential. I feel like there is so much complacency because people think science will save us, and until more people realize that only we can do that by changing our behavior and the structure of our economy, nothing will happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Futility? All I'm saying is that the heroes of this age are the ones spending their lives chaining themselves to trees and blocking industrialization directly. I'm not one of them and I probably won't ever be, but I honestly have no hesitation in claiming that me and most of my peers are part of the problem, even if we understand these ideas and are adamantly against the status quo. We certainly aren't the victims, that would be the third world and those around equatorial regions. We're just first worlders complacent with the comfort provided by industrialized civilization and willing to accept the external consequences, regardless of whether they made lead to the species' extinction or not. One quote that really resonates with me (even I'm not a full blown primitivist) is "If your homeland was invaded by aliens who cut down the forests, poisoned the water and air, and contaminated the food supply, would you resist?" by Derrick Jensen. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
MrSmokes posted:Since it's clear that we're probably not going to reduce emissions enough to avoid extremely dangerous climate change, geoengineering is almost certainly going to be attempted in the future. I mentioned things like aerosols, iron fertilization, and direct capture before. People posted earlier about the dangers of aerosols, but what do you all think about the feasibility of the other two options? I'm not very familiar with iron fertilization, but I found an article about directly capturing CO2 in the atmosphere that seemed interesting: I've heard that iron fertilization has a lot of potential to wreck the ocean (which is less of an issue for us if all the fish have been eaten anyway). I don't know anything about direct capture. That article makes it sound way too hopeful, especially since the last several posts in this thread have fallen back onto "we're doomed". Can someone please explain what horrific flaw exists in direct capture that we won't be able to use it to keep the planet livable? Also, can we please better distinguish between "end of the human race" and "end of the human race as we know it?" Because if the Inuits are going to be all right, that lets me keep the very slightest glimmer of hope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Also, can we please better distinguish between "end of the human race" and "end of the human race as we know it?" Because if the Inuits are going to be all right, that lets me keep the very slightest glimmer of hope. The differences between "end of the human race" and "end of the human race as we know it" are meaningless. I don't think anyone thinks humans are going to be extinct off the planet any time soon, whether or not extinction is in the future is a question we really don't have the information to answer. I do think we can safely say it is a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
quote:Also, can we please better distinguish between "end of the human race" and "end of the human race as we know it?" Because if the Inuits are going to be all right, that lets me keep the very slightest glimmer of hope. Sure; The end of the human race as we know it (that is, contemporary industrial civilization) is pretty much a given at this juncture. I don't see any reasonable way that it could survive a 4-6 degree uptick in temperature over the next hundred years - the stress on aquifers & arable land will be unthinkable. The end of the human race, period, is what is perhaps up for dispute, and it depends on how many feedbacks we trigger on our way to a 4-6 degree immediate future. Do we evaporate so much water that the Earth heats to almost Venus-like conditions? Do we kill off so many plankton or so many trees that the atmosphere no longer possesses sufficient oxygen to sustain large mammals? Do we cause an insect explosion, or some other pest population explosion, that results in an extinction-level famine or pandemic? You basically need to just hope at this point that breaking the climate will not also break enough other systems that we depend on for survival, which isn't a terrific position to be in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The Inuits and other indigenous people are in a worse situation than we are. For one, they don't have the knowledge or skills to deal with a rapidly changing climate. Granted, neither does most of the first world, but our adaptability is a lot higher than most indigenous peoples. Another big problem is the build up of persistent environmental toxins like which concentrate near the top of the food chain, which is really bad news for people like the Inuit who rely heavily on apex predators as a source of fat. Are we really better at adapting than indigenous peoples? This entire thread is a testament to our incredible inability to adapt to a situation right in front of our faces. Indigenous peoples have survived, what, a million years, maybe more in their foraging lifestyle? Our agrarian lifestyles are the experiment which hinge on current environmental climate. They're the ones who've actually survived radical temperature changes before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Well, most of us have neither the training nor the tools to feed ourselves by our own means at this point, even if the soils weren't degraded, the seas weren't depleted, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Indigenous peoples have survived, what, a million years, maybe more in their foraging lifestyle? Our agrarian lifestyles are the experiment which hinge on current environmental climate. They're the ones who've actually survived radical temperature changes before. Anatomically modern humans have only been around for ~200,000 years. And a great many of the species we survived on in that interim have been driven extinct (by us). The species we currently depend on are being put in a precarious position environmentally as we continue to tear down the biodiversity in the ecosystems we depend on. The conditions we survived on during all that time won't be around at the end of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Can someone please explain what horrific flaw exists in direct capture that we won't be able to use it to keep the planet livable? The funny thing to me about proposed carbon sequestration methods is that nature has already devised a way to sequester carbon, and nature's way has the side benefit of causing zero environmental damage. The carbon storing machines that nature has created actually improve the overall health and well-being of the environment - you may have heard of them, they're called "trees." a lovely poster posted:All I'm saying is that the heroes of this age are the ones spending their lives chaining themselves to trees and blocking industrialization directly. I'm not one of them and I probably won't ever be, but I honestly have no hesitation in claiming that me and most of my peers are part of the problem, even if we understand these ideas and are adamantly against the status quo. We certainly aren't the victims, that would be the third world and those around equatorial regions. We're just first worlders complacent with the comfort provided by industrialized civilization and willing to accept the external consequences, regardless of whether they made lead to the species' extinction or not. This matches my experiences pretty well, and it leads me to wonder if we'll ever see violent revolutions that are aimed at overthrowing first-world governments. Between the environmental concerns, income inequality, and morally dubious imperial aims of the first-world countries, you'd think someone is finally going to get sick of all the poo poo and start turning the unemployed and underemployed into a guerilla army. I think that the general success of the civil rights movement in America has perhaps had the unfortunate side effect of causing people, particularly the Left, to default to non-violent protest in situations where non-violent protest will not work. What's especially interesting to me is that even after non-violent protest has been attempted and failed, people keep going back to it. I mean, how many tree-sits have been busted up, how many Occupy camps dispersed and arrested, and to what end result?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
quote:Can someone please explain what horrific flaw exists in direct capture that we won't be able to use it to keep the planet livable? To use a popular example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqVyRa1iuMc There isn't a 'flaw'; the problem is that it's a mitigation technique, not a solution. By all means, capture all of the carbon you can - but if our output continues to increase, we'll outstrip our ability to capture what we've thrown into the atmosphere and we'll have solved nothing. There's also the problem of, "Who is going to do all of the carbon capturing, and when do when plan to start?" We need to start now, and on a very large scale, if we want to use it as a mitigation technique.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
The Ender posted:To use a popular example: Yeah as with any technological solution it mostly comes down to sheer scale - it's not like there's some horrible intrinsic flaw, but the investment (in money, energy and materials) required to implement CO2 removal on a global scale would just be mind-boggling. Here's a quote from Daniel Yergin about CCS, which has similar challenges: quote:In principle, the technology is doable. After all, gases are currently already captured at various kinds of process facilities. CO2 is already transported by pipeline and pumped into old oil and gas fields to help boost production. But when all is said and done, those analogies are limited—different purpose, different geological conditions, not monitored in the way that would be required, and on a much smaller scale. The proposed system for CCS is expensive and it is complex, whether one is talking about technology or politics and the complicated regulatory maze at the federal and state levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Bilal X posted:Yeah as with any technological solution it mostly comes down to sheer scale - it's not like there's some horrible intrinsic flaw, but the investment (in money, energy and materials) required to implement CO2 removal on a global scale would just be mind-boggling. Here's a quote from Daniel Yergin about CCS, which has similar challenges: To be fair, saying "the daily volume of liquids so handled would be about equal" does not give us any useful information. It would seem to me that sequestering C02 at a rate of 1 liter liquid co2 : 1 liter oil consumed would be a monumental step forward. Regarding the cost and scale of this hypothetical effort; while it is staggering to think that we would need "trillions of dollars" to match the rate of fossil fuel consumption it is somewhat easier to imagine doubling the cost of gasoline, natural gas, and coal. While this would obviously be a tough pill to swallow it would be doable if you make the tax appropriately progressive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2012 02:44
|
|
