|
Can't we all agree that, while deeply flawed, Water World was actually a mildly entertaining movie with some fascinating character development and a novel use of rocket powered jet skis? 
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
I desire the outside world to be warm and moist like the sauna I have been living in for my whole life
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
So I think that I've heard that the majority of our fossil fuels come from trees that grew, died, and were buried before fungi had evolved the ability to break down lignin, which allowed trees to decompose and re-emit their carbon. If that is true, does that mean there's no natural carbon sink left for everything we just put into the atmosphere, even over a geologic timescale?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Humans are a smart species, but misanthropic statements are loving stupid. The problem is social. We chose to wholeheartedly embrace the capitalist system, which combined with inadequacies inherent in the human psyche is simply inept at dealing with this kind of issue. And so just like the Rapa Nui destroyed themselves building statues for their gods, we sacrifice our future to the altar of consumerism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:Can't we all agree that, while deeply flawed, Water World was actually a mildly entertaining movie with some fascinating character development and a novel use of rocket powered jet skis? It seemed like it had some big shoes to fill and didn't do it the way a movie with that kind of budget (for the time) was expected to. Also they kind of blew up and then got blown up by the actual ocean, which makes it pro-tier as far as ocean-pocalypses go. And the Exxon Verizon or whatever commanded by a drunk old man who wanted to see the world burn but was a little off put because it was so wet
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:I desire the outside world to be warm and moist like the sauna I have been living in for my whole life What kind of lovely sauna do you live in that isn't dry. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:So I think that I've heard that the majority of our fossil fuels come from trees that grew, died, and were buried before fungi had evolved the ability to break down lignin, which allowed trees to decompose and re-emit their carbon. If that is true, does that mean there's no natural carbon sink left for everything we just put into the atmosphere, even over a geologic timescale? The good news is that after our civilizations fall, the concrete will gradually absorb carbon as it crumbles to dust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Rime posted:What kind of lovely sauna do you live in that isn't dry. welcome to my twisted mind 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
quote:China will invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($361 billion) in renewable power generation between 2016 and 2020 Is this as big as it seems?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:http://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/china-to-invest-360-billion-in-renewable-power-in-2016-2020/56346192 Here is my way to interpret massive infrastructure spending and/or climate change mitigation efforts: 1. Does it bleed? I.e., what portion of the spending ends up operating, and how resilient is that infrastructure once it is built? Does it "leak" emissions elsewhere (as in protected forests that find themselves surrounding by clear cuts in otherwise less favorable areas for timber extraction)? 2. Does it breed? I.e., is this a program that requires constant inputs to sustain, or once built, can it self sustain through cost/benefit analyses of the future? Does it alter market dynamics in the area to incentivize copying it? Does it have a "prestige" factor that can cause it to proliferate, even if costs are occasionally high? In this case, I'd say "probably" on 1 and "likely" on 2. That is to say, it is big, and we need more of it, but as with any bureaucratic effort, it may yet disappoint on some fronts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Of course, there is the fact that solar panel manufacturing requires the utilization of small amounts of extremely powerful greenhouse cases like sulfur hexaflouride and so on. So let's all keep our fingers crossed that Chinese manufacturers are responsible as they scale their operations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
China has shown no reservations when it comes to megaprojects which the west no longer has the stomach for, such as the Three Gorges, so this could be cool. Perhaps they will cover the entire Taklamakan Desert in solar cells or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:So I think that I've heard that the majority of our fossil fuels come from trees that grew, died, and were buried before fungi had evolved the ability to break down lignin, which allowed trees to decompose and re-emit their carbon. If that is true, does that mean there's no natural carbon sink left for everything we just put into the atmosphere, even over a geologic timescale? The world is not required to have ice on it in order for life to exist, if that's your concern. Even if it never really cools back down to pre-industrial temperatures, and even if humanity manages to actually suffocate on the result of our own dead oceans (very unlikely even from the most pessimistic point of view), life will continue to exist on Earth for hundreds of millions of years to come. Just because the new climate is not one that will be able to support 7 billion humans and a global civilisation based on constant growth and accelerating consumption at all times, doesn't mean we're gonna end up like Mars or Venus any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Well I hope reincarnation is a thing, then, because a planet covered in the remnants of 100,000 years worth of high-medieval ruins and legends sounds pretty much like the best thing we can hope for now that space colonization is off the table permanently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The world is not required to have ice on it in order for life to exist, if that's your concern. Even if it never really cools back down to pre-industrial temperatures, and even if humanity manages to actually suffocate on the result of our own dead oceans (very unlikely even from the most pessimistic point of view), life will continue to exist on Earth for hundreds of millions of years to come. Just because the new climate is not one that will be able to support 7 billion humans and a global civilisation based on constant growth and accelerating consumption at all times, doesn't mean we're gonna end up like Mars or Venus any time soon. That isn't really what I was getting at. Just wondering if trees will be able to reabsorb the carbon given that they decay now, but didn't when they first absorbed it hundreds of millions years ago. Obviously life existed back then too, but it was radically different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:So I think that I've heard that the majority of our fossil fuels come from trees that grew, died, and were buried before fungi had evolved the ability to break down lignin, which allowed trees to decompose and re-emit their carbon. If that is true, does that mean there's no natural carbon sink left for everything we just put into the atmosphere, even over a geologic timescale? Rock weathering sequesters massive amounts of carbon dioxide on geological time scales. Despite our best efforts we can't actually change the long-term composition of the atmosphere. Eventually (~600 million years) increased weathering will reduce the concentration of atmospheric carbon-dioxide below what most modern plants need to survive. Also apparently human carbon emissions may delay the start of the next ice age by up to 100000 years. Go team human!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
The icecaps melting has a two-fold warming acceleration effect. The release of methane trapped beneath the ice and the fact that the icecaps reflect a good amount of sunlight hitting Earth. If warming is accelerated enough, coupled with increased acidification of the oceans, then you might see another extinction event. Living things need time to adapt to environmental changes and they won't have time. I am fairly sure the planet's biodiversity can't take another hit after humanity's soft interaction with nature SOMEHOW started wiping things out. Soft like a kitty's tummy. I'm sure some life would exist but not the way we think of the biosphere right now. This is all hypothetical anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:I'm sure some life would exist but not the way we think of the biosphere right now. This is all hypothetical anyway The Earth hasn't always had ice caps, even in relatively "recent" (geologically speaking) times. Life has and will exist without ice caps, it would just be very unpleasant for us if they dumped all their water into the oceans. We really can't gently caress things up too badly on very long time scales. Our ability to do damage is mostly limited to things that are bad for us and a variety of other species unfortunate enough to share the Earth with us in this particular moment in time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:That isn't really what I was getting at. Just wondering if trees will be able to reabsorb the carbon given that they decay now, but didn't when they first absorbed it hundreds of millions years ago. Obviously life existed back then too, but it was radically different. In 600 million years the carbonate silicate cycle will probably be disrupted to the point that there is no carbon left in the atmosphere and photosynthesis as it exists now will be impossible so we have that to look forward to!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:In 600 million years the carbonate silicate cycle will probably be disrupted to the point that there is no carbon left in the atmosphere and photosynthesis as it exists now will be impossible so we have that to look forward to! By then the sun's expansion will have probably taken care of any remaining life on the planet anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:By then the sun's expansion will have probably taken care of any remaining life on the planet anyway. Actually the extinction of plants probably comes well before the sun's expansion sterilizes everything. In 600 million years the sun's luminosity will "only" be ~5-6% greater, so it's conceivable that parts of the globe will still be cool enough to support life. Of course if there's no atmospheric CO2 left then that life won't include plants or animals. The "future of earth" wikipedia page is pretty fun reading: quote:The most rapid part of the Sun's expansion into a red giant will occur during the final stages, when the Sun will be about 12 billion years old. It is likely to expand to swallow both Mercury and Venus, reaching a maximum radius of 1.2 AU (180,000,000 km). The Earth will interact tidally with the Sun's outer atmosphere, which would serve to decrease Earth's orbital radius. Drag from the chromosphere of the Sun would also reduce the Earth's orbit. These effects will act to counterbalance the effect of mass loss by the Sun, and the Earth will probably be engulfed by the Sun.[70]
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
And to put that in perspective, humans have been civilized for less than 10,000 years and possessed the technology required to understand that cosmic timescale for less than a century. We can comfortably cease to exist tomorrow and there will be vanishingly little trace of us within a million years, let alone a billion. Everything this species has ever created, mourned, cherished or coveted will be completely and utterly lost, on a geologic timescale. Given long enough, not even a fossil trace will remain to hint that we ever existed. Rime fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
drat man, as if this thread wasn't depressing enough! I think that's the real human experience, realize how insignificant you are and be glad you can pull any happiness out of it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
gently caress all that. We are going to space. Your rear end might be gobbled up by the sun but my ancestors are gonna be partying it up on Mars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:gently caress all that. We are going to space. Your rear end might be gobbled up by the sun but my ancestors are gonna be partying it up on Mars. Your ancestors are dead and buried. You meant to say descendants. But Mars is going to get swallowed by the Sun too, so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Your ancestors are dead and buried. You meant to say descendants. Whoops, yes I meant descendants. And gently caress Mars. We will go to Jupiter then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Whoops, yes I meant descendants. And gently caress Mars. We will go to Jupiter then. Eventually, everything as far away as Pluto will be too hot for life as we know it in this solar system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Eventually the universe will end in such a way that no information is left in it, but being a lifeform that evolved to gain pleasure from eating sugary fruit I don't worry too much about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
Rime posted:And to put that in perspective, humans have been civilized for less than 10,000 years and possessed the technology required to understand that cosmic timescale for less than a century. So uhhh...can I have your liver out then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
The human race wasn't really doomed to death at the same time as the planet, we could have advanced enough that evacuation of the solar system could become a real option at some point in the distant future (maybe warp fields or wormholes or some poo poo could have panned out, or maybe someone builds a flying subluminal-speed city-ship), but honestly anyone who thinks that humanity is getting off this chunk of dirt and water and metal and going to live anywhere else for more than a few months is probably fooling themselves at this point. Anyways, forests are still a carbon sink in the sense that they hold onto a certain amount of carbon that is released when the trees die and absorbed when they are replaced, but they cannot clean the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels, no. Unless someone gets around to building a huge vault to store dead trees in so that they can't decay and release carbon into the atmosphere and then just keep growing forests and cutting them down and storing the trees indefinitely, but I doubt that that's the most likely geoengineering path that anyone's gonna be taking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The human race wasn't really doomed to death at the same time as the planet, we could have advanced enough that evacuation of the solar system could become a real option at some point in the distant future (maybe warp fields or wormholes or some poo poo could have panned out, or maybe someone builds a flying subluminal-speed city-ship), but honestly anyone who thinks that humanity is getting off this chunk of dirt and water and metal and going to live anywhere else for more than a few months is probably fooling themselves at this point. Actually, we still potentially can. We can model and predict the effects of climate change, but mankinds adaptation to it and future industrial and technological humanity we'd be fools to pretend we can know very much about. We couldn't predict what 2016 would look like in 1966, and we don't know what 2066 is going to look like now (except, you know, more ocean and storms and horrible conditions in the third world). Something to keep in mind, and I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, whatever nation/company/rich dude who is first out of the gravity well in a permanent way (manufacture, industry etc in space) is going to be absolutely massively rich and powerful. Not only for the things a space-based economy can provide in raw materials and manufacture for global delivery, but also because it's very hard to project legal or actual power on someone who is self-sufficiently space based. The technology isn't there yet, but with advances in automation, medicine and the stuff they are developing on the ISS, it's not inconceivable within our lifetimes. There are probably some people with power and money who are incredibly motivated to make this happen. As for storing dead trees, I kind of feel like that's something that could possibly be done with access to enough cheap power (I'm thinking mainly electrical). Cutting down tress and replanting is a somewhat long-term carbon sequestration plan, but it relies on natural processes (plant growth) which requires minimal direct input of resources (don't need electricity or machines, just dudes planting), and the sequestration process in itself requires forestry machines (which is technology we have and can be electric or biofuel-driven), and it would also be a gigantic jobs program for out of work low education people. As for storage itself, that needs some research and feasability study, but I can think of several options right off the top of my head. Compared to sequestration into carbon nanotubes or carbon bricks or diamonds or anything else that needs complex machinery and lots of power, it's a pretty simple operation. I wouldn't dismiss it as a pie-in-the-sky idea, though the challenge of actually getting to work on it is the same political monster that makes progress towards solutions so glacial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
The current state of the world is the answer to the Fermi paradox.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The current state of the world is the answer to the Fermi paradox. It's such an obvious solution, too. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/iceberg-breaking-antarctica-larsen-1.3924091 This cant be good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The current state of the world is the answer to the Fermi paradox. The Groper posted:It's such an obvious solution, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
We're boned. The U.S. election killed whatever avenues there were to go forward from here with climate change mitigation. In a household with an incredibly tight budget trying to make ends meet, Trump just walked through the door and announced with bombast that he spent our limited savings on time shares. We didn't have 8 years to spend just waffling around at best. What we have now will be as good as it gets; if you have kids, I'm real sorry for you. They will be raising their own families in deteriorating conditions and you will have to watch it happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/iceberg-breaking-antarctica-larsen-1.3924091 Not to be rude but hasn't this been discussed in this thread a lot already? Some satellite nerds found a way to see the fractures from SPAAAACE Then some other nerds found out there are undersea ice lakes inside the icy bits and people put two and two together Then NASA suddenly got defunded Something like that
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:Not to be rude but hasn't this been discussed in this thread a lot already? Sorry, I only pop in and out of this thread when I need a healthy dose of depression. I skipped some 600 posts since I was last here so if its been discussed at length in that time then I will take some time to go back and read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Sorry, I only pop in and out of this thread when I need a healthy dose of depression. I skipped some 600 posts since I was last here so if its been discussed at length in that time then I will take some time to go back and read. Again, I didn't mean to be rude and I got some stuff wrong there for sure I always use terrible sources to make broad sweeping gestures like I understand anything http://www.popsci.com/trumps-plan-to-defund-nasas-earth-sciences-division-would-leave-hole-in-climate-research And how that might stack up. To the moon Ivanka! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98qw86DsdZ0
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
The Ender posted:We're boned. There's still an outlier chance Trump will successfully humanize Climate Change by giving the world the villain we need: the USA. Climate is a serious opportunity for China to usurp the USA's position of leadership in the world and they know it. There is still the small possibility that given the chance to, at the same time, destroy American hegemony and mitigate climate change that the rest of the world will do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:49
|
|
