Author Topic: The Official Climate Change Thread  (Read 31147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20318
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #175 on: October 11, 2011, 11:36:28 AM »

I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.

We may not need more water. We may just need to alter the way the plant manages water. We see companies that have genetically engineered grass to use water almost 50% more efficiently. This helps people in hotter climates keep a green lawn. I'm not saying it is the solution, but something that could conceivably be done, and might not hurt looking into. Planting more plants would immediately double the water needs, and double the amount of methane that gets released during their decay, the solution to create more efficient forests could solve that issue.

Quote
No, I believe it's possible; what I don't think is clear is how that comes about, what kind of other feedbacks and other possibilities will actually happen. What I don't believe is that it's the for-sure result. But this seems to miss the point for me, because pollution in and of itself is bad, and so even if our emissions don't lead to a runaway effect, there are so many reasons why we should be cutting back emissions, that it's rather irrelevant in the end.

I agree with you here. We may never be sure what can cause severe fluctuation in CO2 levels. We haven't been around long enough to gather anywhere near the data required to do so. We are able to determine that in the past levels have been much higher and much lower than they currently are. We see those results. The question as to whether or not carbon emissions have greatly contributed to higher levels doesn't need a definitive answer. We know it could certainly be a possibility. It couldn't hurt to release less into the atmosphere. If not for the sake of Carbon levels, for the sake of pollutants in general, as well as not needing to rely on a product that we have to get from people who hate us.

Whether we caused it or not, I believe that there are events that will be occurring regardless of whether we change are ways or not. Even if carbon emissions are not causing the ice caps to melt, the scary truth is that they are. You never hear anyone talking about what we are going to do when that happens. We think the nation is in turmoil now... what happens when millions of people not only loose their home, but the land upon which they live. The relocation of millions of American's is going to be a unavoidable problem we are going to have to deal with regardless of the actions we take today.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #176 on: October 11, 2011, 11:45:15 AM »
I mean whenever I feel like we're doomed, there's this article that gives me a little bit of hope: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html

But we always have the Terra Nova option. ;D
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #177 on: October 11, 2011, 11:51:48 AM »

I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.

We may not need more water. We may just need to alter the way the plant manages water. We see companies that have genetically engineered grass to use water almost 50% more efficiently. This helps people in hotter climates keep a green lawn. I'm not saying it is the solution, but something that could conceivably be done, and might not hurt looking into. Planting more plants would immediately double the water needs, and double the amount of methane that gets released during their decay, the solution to create more efficient forests could solve that issue.

Okay, I get your point. Still, I think this is an unnecessary complication. We have the technology to sequester carbon (there's even ones that look like trees), but the bigger issue should be our emitting the carbon. Plus, more oxygen may not necessarily be a good thing. A runaway oxygen effect would be just as bad (in fact, that's what nearly snowballed earth).


Quote
Whether we caused it or not, I believe that there are events that will be occurring regardless of whether we change are ways or not. Even if carbon emissions are not causing the ice caps to melt, the scary truth is that they are. You never hear anyone talking about what we are going to do when that happens. We think the nation is in turmoil now... what happens when millions of people not only loose their home, but the land upon which they live. The relocation of millions of American's is going to be a unavoidable problem we are going to have to deal with regardless of the actions we take today.

This has always annoyed me.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #178 on: October 11, 2011, 11:56:46 AM »

I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.

We may not need more water. We may just need to alter the way the plant manages water. We see companies that have genetically engineered grass to use water almost 50% more efficiently. This helps people in hotter climates keep a green lawn. I'm not saying it is the solution, but something that could conceivably be done, and might not hurt looking into. Planting more plants would immediately double the water needs, and double the amount of methane that gets released during their decay, the solution to create more efficient forests could solve that issue.

Okay, I get your point. Still, I think this is an unnecessary complication. We have the technology to sequester carbon (there's even ones that look like trees), but the bigger issue should be our emitting the carbon. Plus, more oxygen may not necessarily be a good thing. A runaway oxygen effect would be just as bad (in fact, that's what nearly snowballed earth).


Shouldn't we be doing both? I mean even if we cut the global emissions rate down to zero, totally carbon neutral, global warming is going to happen.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20318
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #179 on: October 11, 2011, 12:00:11 PM »


Quote
Whether we caused it or not, I believe that there are events that will be occurring regardless of whether we change are ways or not. Even if carbon emissions are not causing the ice caps to melt, the scary truth is that they are. You never hear anyone talking about what we are going to do when that happens. We think the nation is in turmoil now... what happens when millions of people not only loose their home, but the land upon which they live. The relocation of millions of American's is going to be a unavoidable problem we are going to have to deal with regardless of the actions we take today.

This has always annoyed me.

What I said annoys you? Or the fact that people don't acknowlege what I said?

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #180 on: October 11, 2011, 12:41:33 PM »


Quote
Whether we caused it or not, I believe that there are events that will be occurring regardless of whether we change are ways or not. Even if carbon emissions are not causing the ice caps to melt, the scary truth is that they are. You never hear anyone talking about what we are going to do when that happens. We think the nation is in turmoil now... what happens when millions of people not only loose their home, but the land upon which they live. The relocation of millions of American's is going to be a unavoidable problem we are going to have to deal with regardless of the actions we take today.

This has always annoyed me.

What I said annoys you? Or the fact that people don't acknowlege what I said?

That what you said isn't acknowledged in the media, or politics, or by many people.

I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.

We may not need more water. We may just need to alter the way the plant manages water. We see companies that have genetically engineered grass to use water almost 50% more efficiently. This helps people in hotter climates keep a green lawn. I'm not saying it is the solution, but something that could conceivably be done, and might not hurt looking into. Planting more plants would immediately double the water needs, and double the amount of methane that gets released during their decay, the solution to create more efficient forests could solve that issue.

Okay, I get your point. Still, I think this is an unnecessary complication. We have the technology to sequester carbon (there's even ones that look like trees), but the bigger issue should be our emitting the carbon. Plus, more oxygen may not necessarily be a good thing. A runaway oxygen effect would be just as bad (in fact, that's what nearly snowballed earth).


Shouldn't we be doing both? I mean even if we cut the global emissions rate down to zero, totally carbon neutral, global warming is going to happen.

Are you proposing we have the ability to actually achieve such a balance? Cause I don't think we could, and why do what the environment already does. To try and solve our environmental problem, we shouldn't try and resort too much on a solution which comes with it's own problems. It's the lady who swallowed the fly, it's much easier to just not pollute than to try and clean it up later.


Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #181 on: October 11, 2011, 12:46:14 PM »
So what are your thoughts on the whole ice caps bit? Like what should we be doing to slow that down/prevent it/deal with it?
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20318
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #182 on: October 11, 2011, 12:59:22 PM »
So what are your thoughts on the whole ice caps bit? Like what should we be doing to slow that down/prevent it/deal with it?

If we slow it down, it will prevent a disaster for maybe a few more years. We can't prevent it. As far as how to deal with it... I have no fucking clue. Whatever we decide, completely fucking mayhem will be impossible to avoid. I mean, realistically, how do you move millions of people. All home owners would have to buy/build new homes elsewhere. Business in the doomed areas will most likely go under. Jobs will not be available in places where people do move. Etc etc.... I really don't know what the hell will happen. But hey, it's not my job to come up with evacuation and relocation plans. I just hope I don't have to see it in my lifetime.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #183 on: October 11, 2011, 02:06:52 PM »
See that very inevitability is why I worry about the possibility of a positive feedback loop. That means what we have to do is find some way to manage all the methane that is then released from a huge release event.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #184 on: October 11, 2011, 05:58:11 PM »
So what are your thoughts on the whole ice caps bit? Like what should we be doing to slow that down/prevent it/deal with it?

I'd rather not swallow a spider to kill a fly.

The problem is that we're messing with an ecosystem we don't fully understand, so I don't see how messing with this balance even more is going to be beneficial to us. What are we going to do to prevent it or slow it down, and how can we be absolutely positive we can control that force the way we want, and that there won't be even more consequences we have to deal with? Better to have the problem I know, than the problem I don't know.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #185 on: October 11, 2011, 06:44:28 PM »
Well suppose the ice caps do melt and it causes planetary warming at an alarming rate (we're talking 2 degrees every few decades without pause). What would you suggest?
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #186 on: October 11, 2011, 09:19:26 PM »
Well suppose the ice caps do melt and it causes planetary warming at an alarming rate (we're talking 2 degrees every few decades without pause). What would you suggest?

Something that wouldn't be everlasting, like plant modifications. I suppose if I was forced to pick a "solution," I would choose a dust option. I think there's some plans out there for using nukes to basically blow a shitload of material into the atmosphere, to block the suns rays. But really, that wouldn't address the cause of the warming, so it would only do so much; notably, it wouldn't address ocean acidification.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #187 on: October 11, 2011, 09:35:05 PM »
Nuking us out of a Venus-type situation sounds really rather extreme. Is that really our best shot?
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #188 on: October 11, 2011, 10:00:03 PM »
Nuking us out of a Venus-type situation sounds really rather extreme. Is that really our best shot?

Well I suppose some people have some cloud-seeding idea's, but again it doesn't solve the issue, only some of its effects.

Our best shot is to try and not get in that situation in the first place, and if we're already there, then frankly there's only ugly solutions.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #189 on: October 11, 2011, 10:02:53 PM »
Well, I suppose that's why I'm entering this business in the first place. God help us all.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20318
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #190 on: October 12, 2011, 04:32:39 AM »
Nuking us out of a Venus-type situation sounds really rather extreme. Is that really our best shot?

Well I suppose some people have some cloud-seeding idea's, but again it doesn't solve the issue, only some of its effects.

Our best shot is to try and not get in that situation in the first place, and if we're already there, then frankly there's only ugly solutions.

In regards to the sun...

"either way, when that thing burns out we're all gonna be dead"

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #191 on: October 12, 2011, 05:40:43 AM »
Good thing we figured out that neutrino moves FTL. :neverusethis:
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline jcmistat

  • Posts: 823
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #192 on: October 24, 2011, 08:57:51 PM »
I think it would be better to focus on more immediate problems then worry about the world slowly burning up. For me this is like religion I'm sticking with agnostic. I got another 50 or so years going from average life expectancy of the U.S. and if it does exist I don't care enough because I won't experience the extremes.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #193 on: October 24, 2011, 09:13:08 PM »
Well I for one would like for my grandchildren to have grandchildren.

And it's not gonna be slow.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline tofee35

  • Posts: 326
  • Gender: Male
  • That aint nothin'
    • repenso architecture + design
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #194 on: October 25, 2011, 01:15:09 PM »
I'm not a scientist or economist. I go off of what I see and experience regardless of heresay and public opinion.

Now... to just pipe in on my feelings of GW and how it affects me as an American: I feel that despite whether GW is simply a contemporary term for "a shift in climate" or a catastrophe caused by greenhouse gases (us humans), its exposure has both negatives and positives on my life.

Positives: It boosts the movement (and R/D) of renewable resources such as wind/solar power and many energy-powered sources. That creates new jobs. If fossil fuel-based companies don't  jump on that band wagon, that's their own fault for not being competitive (ie polaroid in the digital age). No matter how much of an affect we have on the destruction of our environment, creating less impactful ways can only move us forward. That's about all the positives I get out of this.

Negatives: In my every day life, the lobbying for GW and environmental protection in general has done more harm than good. Construction jobs (for example) all over the country have to meet extremely costly environmental regulations that local and federal gov'ts have complete control over (even private projects). One example is that small businesses cannot afford to accomodate over-the-top environmental regulations. To give a specific example as a result of GW: construction jobs are requiring very strict smog and carb regulations for every piece of equipment/vehicle used on a job. How strict? Growing businesses cannot afford to buy or rent the equipment required to complete the job and break even (never mind turning a profit). Large corporations with multiple projects are feeling huge losses as well. Despite the reality of GW, the regulations I'm talking about do not help the environment. They are very much financially driven.

I can't tell you what the latest economic numbers or scientific theories are on GW but this is what I deal with every day. Again, please don't jump all over me for not being well informed on the big picture, I just say it as it affects me. I hear this side of the forum is a dangerous place, so I thought I'd be clear on where my thoughts are coming from.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #195 on: October 25, 2011, 02:29:45 PM »
What do you do? Just as a response to your hint.

Also, being part of such an advocacy group, the data that I've been shown is actually pretty encouraging, both in terms of public health and economics. It's something like $20 trillion saved by the end of the decade, taking into account health bills, missed work days, and things of that nature. I don't have the literature in front of me right now so these are just coming out of my ass right now, but I can say for a fact that the economic and environmental benefits are greater than if they weren't there to begin with.

Edit: And I'm not trying to be like, "OMGWTF THESE MEASURES ARE PERFECT FUCK YOU," but from what I know the benefits are much more noticeable in their absence (a perfect case being the lack thereof in China).
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline tofee35

  • Posts: 326
  • Gender: Male
  • That aint nothin'
    • repenso architecture + design
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #196 on: October 25, 2011, 11:19:16 PM »
What do you do? Just as a response to your hint.

Also, being part of such an advocacy group, the data that I've been shown is actually pretty encouraging, both in terms of public health and economics. It's something like $20 trillion saved by the end of the decade, taking into account health bills, missed work days, and things of that nature. I don't have the literature in front of me right now so these are just coming out of my ass right now, but I can say for a fact that the economic and environmental benefits are greater than if they weren't there to begin with.

Edit: And I'm not trying to be like, "OMGWTF THESE MEASURES ARE PERFECT FUCK YOU," but from what I know the benefits are much more noticeable in their absence (a perfect case being the lack thereof in China).

Hi Super Dude. I'm not sure if you're addressing me or not. I'm not a part of an advocacy group. I'm a manager for a contractor on a large construction project going on the US. I see your point that environmental benefits are greater than if there weren't any at all. There is definitely a place for a reasonable level of environmental practice in the workplace and every day living. But, I'm gearing my criticism more towards the unnecessary regulations where the intentions of the ESA (and related agencies) are for financial gain and the promotion of economic drought more than actually improving the environment. I'm all for financial gain as long as the product is not built on a fallacy.

Basically I'm saying that you can compare the lobbying of GW to an infomercial for a $19.95 Call Now Product. In theory, the product sounds fantastic, but once you get it, you realize that you're stuck with S&H at double the cost and the product doesn't work.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #197 on: October 26, 2011, 01:26:30 AM »
Basically I'm saying that you can compare the lobbying of GW to an infomercial for a $19.95 Call Now Product. In theory, the product sounds fantastic, but once you get it, you realize that you're stuck with S&H at double the cost and the product doesn't work.

And the unreasonable infomercial-esq policies we may get (due to corruption, I'd bet) doesn't mean we shouldn't do something reasonable about the issue, as you allude to. I may not need the super-amazing vegetable slicer, but that doesn't mean I don't need a knife to cut vegetables. There are some sane ways of trying to reduce carbon emissions, and some corrupt ways. Requiring people to buy a product isn't a good way to go at it, but perhaps helping to make it so that the product is cheaper, therefor it would be bought anyways, is something the government can invest in, and speed the process along.

Offline Orthogonal

  • Posts: 916
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #198 on: October 26, 2011, 09:20:34 AM »
Well I for one would like for my grandchildren to have grandchildren.

And it's not gonna be slow.

I think everyone wants this. Though people have varying degrees of concern. I think the ultimate solution is a little bit counter-intuitive but we'll get there eventually. The data more or less proves we are in a warming period, but it's not definitive as to the source. Regardless of whether it is natural or anthropogenic, we need to find ways of dealing with it. Even if there is no anthropogenic cause, we're still headed for an eventual energy crisis if we don't move to renewable sources since coal/oil can only sustain us for so long. I believe the transition will be smoother without government intervention, but I digress. The next major Human revolution will be around energy efficiency and economization out of necessity due to the diverging trend of available non-renewable energy sources and the growth of the population and demand for energy.

The path to a greener society may not be what you think. Yes, there are long term gains that can be attained from increased health and productivity from lost work days etc, but implementing most green policies will increase the upfront fixed costs of production. In other words, the move to green requires a lot of wealth to be diverted to protecting the environment. In addition to the increased capex, the move to green will depend on having a strong existing infrastructure. To illustrate this point, think of Email. The advent of Email was a major boon to the green cause. There was a significant reduction in the need for paper and cutting down tree's, also a huge decrease in carbon emissions and energy consumption from the manufacturing and transportation of paper etc. However, for Email to be developed, we have to remember that there was TONS of paper and transportation used by all the companies building the infrastructure to support email from networks, to servers and software. Also, consider the gas used in transportation and construction, hell, just the car's getting people to work had an impact. The point is, the Green technology's (like email) are built on the backs of prior non-green technologies. This may not be a terribly surprising revelation, but it drives home the point that any advancements in green technology are predicated on a broad and complex network of non-green technologies that come before it. Therefore, any types of regulations that hinder existing infrastructure can only add delay's and additional costs, either directly or indirectly, to development and proliferation of green technologies. Yes, regulations may reap short-term environmental gains, but it may delay the real gains further and jeapordize long-term improvements.

In conclusion, we need to have a very strong pro-growth economic plan to generate wealth in ALL industries to pay for transition to Green technologies, further, we need to limit the regulations to ensure we don't indirectly hobble the the industry by cutting out the legs it needs to stand on.

I'm welcome to feedback.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #199 on: October 26, 2011, 01:48:53 PM »
Green tech is very much about growth, and is doing so rapidly. I'd love to elaborate but I'm on lunch break atm.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #200 on: October 26, 2011, 02:10:37 PM »
Quote
I think everyone wants this. Though people have varying degrees of concern. I think the ultimate solution is a little bit counter-intuitive but we'll get there eventually. The data more or less proves we are in a warming period, but it's not definitive as to the source. Regardless of whether it is natural or anthropogenic, we need to find ways of dealing with it. Even if there is no anthropogenic cause, we're still headed for an eventual energy crisis if we don't move to renewable sources since coal/oil can only sustain us for so long. I believe the transition will be smoother without government intervention, but I digress. The next major Human revolution will be around energy efficiency and economization out of necessity due to the diverging trend of available non-renewable energy sources and the growth of the population and demand for energy.

I agree that we need a moderate response, but we do need a response. Ocean acidification doesn't get as much news, or as much lobbying, but it's a serious economic and environmental hazard, and it's culprit is CO2. The problem I see with saying you, "waste money on the environment," is that it's short sighted statement, and ignores the massive economic role of the environment (as in, it's the foundation, without which there could be no economy). Clean air and water laws have saved us money by reducing health problems related to dirty air and dirty water, money which can then go back to other parts of the economy. It's a balance to be sought, for sure, but protecting and aiding the environment through investments does not necessitate economic harm (even National Park and Wild Life Refuges attracts tourists, which although not productive in a strict sense, is a good thing for a local economy).

For example, the efficiency standards for cars. Here we have a field of technology which is very capable of expanding beyond the efficiencies in place, but which don't happen due to other reasons. I have a car which is 15 years old and get's better mileage than some brand new hybrids. Why? Because my car doesn't have fancy shit that takes up energy. It doesn't have TV's, it doesn't have a huge amazing sound system, it's windows are manual, it's lighter (but still quite safe), and has shitty cup holders. Recently, Obama, in cooperation with the private sector (which makes me very very suspicious of corruption, to be honest), raised the required fleet fuel efficiency to a standard of 56 by 2025 (it varies by car, by size; semi's and trucks have lower standards, some have higher, I believe); this was accompanied by a commercial which basically said that this law will drive innovation, and that it wasn't a problem for the car industry.

Basically, the market, and consumer purchasing power, does not address all issues, and humans are woefully nearsighted. When buying a car, an individual may go for that amazingly awesome car with a bunch of cool electronics, and GPS units, and TV's, and all that, but suffer a huge hit to their fuel standards. Problem is, most consumers are too ignorant to realize that those electrical devices take energy away from the car's mileage, and those shiny things attract them. Other car companies then face problems in trying to raise their mileage, because they still have to compete with all those shiny cars (note: I didn't say impossible, the Prius is a good example of these hurdles being overcome). The overall effect is a fleet which is much less fuel efficient, but which causes all the pollution problem's we're aware of, and is something which must be addressed for environmental reasons. On a macro level, CO2 and pollution breach the liberal definition of liberty and freedom, and so macro level solutions (government), are not only justified, but they can sometimes be necessary to address the problem. To go back to cars; the problem in and of itself is not that a company is making a less "efficient" product than it should "regulated," it's that those inefficiencies cause problems for all of us, and yet individually we cannot address the problem as well as we can if we do it en masse. By doing it en masse, we also give producer's a clearer idea of what they need to do to satisfy their customers; that is, instead of companies being hindered from progress due to all those fancy cars with their fancy things, the focus will be on efficiency, by all companies, with attention later given to those shiny, fancy things.

Beyond that, though, it amps up the potential gain for innovating beyond the current technology. Our engine designs, in basic concept, hasn't changed much since it was created; but there have been people who have recently come up with completely new ways of trapping the energy made by a small explosion. Whereas those kinds of idea's, in the stale market we we're seeing in fuel efficiency, would never be given a shot, now there is much more incentive to invest, research, and try out some different models and approaches.


Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #201 on: October 26, 2011, 02:13:34 PM »
The solar market in Massachusetts is huge. People (everyday people, not just businesses) are making a lot of bucks off it.

Edit: And in California, you can recharge a fully electric car at an oil equivalent of 75 cents/gallon. I feel like I've mentioned that here already though.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 05:15:42 PM by Super Dude »
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #202 on: November 28, 2011, 03:11:09 PM »
Canada is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15930562


Fuck this.  It's embarrassing.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #203 on: November 28, 2011, 04:25:10 PM »
Goddammit Canada. Maybe it's time Michigan invaded, take back our 1812 territory. :yarr
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26497
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #204 on: November 28, 2011, 08:57:41 PM »
I personally find it hard to not become a pessimist these days. The new climate conference will be just the same as always. Absolutely jack shit will get done, because of the big guys blocking things (most notably, USA) and any of the smaller guys hiding behind it, some of them pretending to want more but in essence exactly knowing they can say those things safely because it will never go through. All politics.
Einstein called for a world government, and I can see the reason why, because he probably saw the same thing happening in his time than now.
In the end, humans will just return to their previous place in nature: A species that dies at the hand of nature. Cynically said, our inability to get shit done will take care of over-population quite soon.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #205 on: November 30, 2011, 08:00:56 AM »
I think the entire Western world should just get together and collectively declare war on Bangladesh.  It would be a lot more honest than what we're doing now.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
    • My blog
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #206 on: November 30, 2011, 08:00:54 PM »
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513

Quote
Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.

Thoughts?

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #207 on: December 01, 2011, 12:59:28 AM »
"lower probability of imminent extreme climate change" still means "probably of imminent extreme climate change." We still need to do something about co2, for a variety of reasons.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #208 on: December 01, 2011, 06:35:41 AM »
I was actually thinking of saying that, but I would add to that that we are actually already seeing its milder effects anyway, so it's a moot point.

Plus, I think anyone who strongly supports mitigation and adaptation measures and such things as alternative energy are more in the line of "low probability, high cost" thinking (I know I am).
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
    • My blog
Re: The Official Global Warming Thread
« Reply #209 on: December 01, 2011, 11:23:33 AM »
I was hoping for a little more analysis of the study. Where's GuineaPig?