New posts

Climate Change - so I'm starting to panic a bit

July 22, 2021, 4:31 a.m.
Posts: 1235
Joined: Nov. 6, 2006

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: KenN

I'm well and truly terrified of what my kids will have to face in their world after we've finished fucking it up.

And now you know why I've actively avoided having any. The world's bee  messed up for a long time.

And many here thank you.

July 22, 2021, 12:16 p.m.
Posts: 11494
Joined: June 29, 2006

I am starting to think that solar geoengineering might not be such a bad idea.  Even if we were carbon neutral tomorrow and changed how we grow food and replant forests, there is theoretically a 40 years lag before the climate will stabilize at that level.  Since we are not doing that we can easily add 20 years, so 60 more years of warming beyond what we see today.  That is an Earth very different than the one we live on.  The only option would be to counter it somehow.  Thoughts?

July 22, 2021, 7:46 p.m.
Posts: 15407
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: FLATCH

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: KenN

I'm well and truly terrified of what my kids will have to face in their world after we've finished fucking it up.

And now you know why I've actively avoided having any. The world's bee  messed up for a long time.

And many here thank you.

Too bad the rest of you fornicators couldn't do the same.

July 22, 2021, 7:50 p.m.
Posts: 15407
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

I am starting to think that solar geoengineering might not be such a bad idea.  Even if we were carbon neutral tomorrow and changed how we grow food and replant forests, there is theoretically a 40 years lag before the climate will stabilize at that level.  Since we are not doing that we can easily add 20 years, so 60 more years of warming beyond what we see today.  That is an Earth very different than the one we live on.  The only option would be to counter it somehow.  Thoughts?

What do we do with the old panels after they've expired? Similar to electric car batteries past their shelf life - we don't have a good means to recycle them.

July 22, 2021, 9:54 p.m.
Posts: 3414
Joined: May 23, 2006

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

I am starting to think that solar geoengineering might not be such a bad idea.  Even if we were carbon neutral tomorrow and changed how we grow food and replant forests, there is theoretically a 40 years lag before the climate will stabilize at that level.  Since we are not doing that we can easily add 20 years, so 60 more years of warming beyond what we see today.  That is an Earth very different than the one we live on.  The only option would be to counter it somehow.  Thoughts?

What do we do with the old panels after they've expired? Similar to electric car batteries past their shelf life - we don't have a good means to recycle them.

It's called "de-growth". Irrespective of how efficient power storage evolves.

July 23, 2021, 12:39 a.m.
Posts: 2249
Joined: April 2, 2005

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

I am starting to think that solar geoengineering might not be such a bad idea.  Even if we were carbon neutral tomorrow and changed how we grow food and replant forests, there is theoretically a 40 years lag before the climate will stabilize at that level.  Since we are not doing that we can easily add 20 years, so 60 more years of warming beyond what we see today.  That is an Earth very different than the one we live on.  The only option would be to counter it somehow.  Thoughts?

What do we do with the old panels after they've expired? Similar to electric car batteries past their shelf life - we don't have a good means to recycle them.

the usual bullshit from you, etablished recycling plants recycle around 80%, new ones in germany even 90%:

https://senec.com/de/senec-blog/recycling-von-pv-modulen

(you can translate that on your own)

July 23, 2021, 8:35 a.m.
Posts: 11494
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

I am starting to think that solar geoengineering might not be such a bad idea.  Even if we were carbon neutral tomorrow and changed how we grow food and replant forests, there is theoretically a 40 years lag before the climate will stabilize at that level.  Since we are not doing that we can easily add 20 years, so 60 more years of warming beyond what we see today.  That is an Earth very different than the one we live on.  The only option would be to counter it somehow.  Thoughts?

What do we do with the old panels after they've expired? Similar to electric car batteries past their shelf life - we don't have a good means to recycle them.

That is not what I am talking about.

Solar geoengineering refers to proposed approaches to cool the Earth by reflecting solar radiation back to space. The two main approaches being researched are stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB).

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/what-solar-geoengineering

July 24, 2021, 1:51 p.m.
Posts: 15407
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

I am starting to think that solar geoengineering might not be such a bad idea.  Even if we were carbon neutral tomorrow and changed how we grow food and replant forests, there is theoretically a 40 years lag before the climate will stabilize at that level.  Since we are not doing that we can easily add 20 years, so 60 more years of warming beyond what we see today.  That is an Earth very different than the one we live on.  The only option would be to counter it somehow.  Thoughts?

What do we do with the old panels after they've expired? Similar to electric car batteries past their shelf life - we don't have a good means to recycle them.

That is not what I am talking about.

Solar geoengineering refers to proposed approaches to cool the Earth by reflecting solar radiation back to space. The two main approaches being researched are stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB).

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/what-solar-geoengineering

Thats semi hilarious to me because when I've mentioned SAI in the past, aka, cloud seeding and the ever classic chem trails, its been laughed at bordering on ridicule. Lets say I think we need to find a better way to block the Sun. Not quite like Mr Burns' idea but leaving a chemical mixture at some level in the atmosphere doesnt sit well with me. Not just b/c Gates wanted to do it and was recently denied.

And I must ask, does that mean you are finally agreeing with me that the Sun is an issue regarding the Climate Change?

July 24, 2021, 1:53 p.m.
Posts: 15407
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: Sethimus

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

I am starting to think that solar geoengineering might not be such a bad idea.  Even if we were carbon neutral tomorrow and changed how we grow food and replant forests, there is theoretically a 40 years lag before the climate will stabilize at that level.  Since we are not doing that we can easily add 20 years, so 60 more years of warming beyond what we see today.  That is an Earth very different than the one we live on.  The only option would be to counter it somehow.  Thoughts?

What do we do with the old panels after they've expired? Similar to electric car batteries past their shelf life - we don't have a good means to recycle them.

the usual bullshit from you, etablished recycling plants recycle around 80%, new ones in germany even 90%:

https://senec.com/de/senec-blog/recycling-von-pv-modulen

(you can translate that on your own)

Nah you can keep it but I'll just ask if thats solar panels or also electric car batteries. I might be 50 50 on this one :P

ps: I'll say it again just to be gooder, if I'm wrong its probably because I dont know everything. Cool yer jets.

July 25, 2021, 11:32 a.m.
Posts: 1557
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

So it looks like we've might have about 20yrs left before things turn to crap.

A 1972 MIT study predicted that rapid economic growth would lead to societal collapse in the mid 21st century. A new paper shows we’re unfortunately right on schedule.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vindicates-1972-mit-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon

July 26, 2021, 7:49 a.m.
Posts: 283
Joined: Oct. 23, 2003

Posted by: syncro

So it looks like we've might have about 20yrs left before things turn to crap.

A 1972 MIT study predicted that rapid economic growth would lead to societal collapse in the mid 21st century. A new paper shows we’re unfortunately right on schedule.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vindicates-1972-mit-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon

That's kinda what I'm banking on for not saving for retirement.

July 26, 2021, 9:43 a.m.
Posts: 11494
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Thats semi hilarious to me because when I've mentioned SAI in the past, aka, cloud seeding and the ever classic chem trails, its been laughed at bordering on ridicule. Lets say I think we need to find a better way to block the Sun. Not quite like Mr Burns' idea but leaving a chemical mixture at some level in the atmosphere doesnt sit well with me. Not just b/c Gates wanted to do it and was recently denied.

And I must ask, does that mean you are finally agreeing with me that the Sun is an issue regarding the Climate Change?

SAI is not cloud seeding.  It involves injecting aerosols in to the stratosphere high above the clouds.  You really ought to read a few of the things we post for a change.  Below is the video on both things work. 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/UCS_Videos/solar-geoengineering-how-it-works.mp4

Anyhoo, I am breaking my new trolling policy here but your questions do look semi serious.  Obviously the sun is part of the equation, that is how the greenhouse gases work. This idea (solar geoengineering) has never sat well with me either, but we have fucked up the balance with CO2 and it will only get worse with various feedback loops so the alternative is probably much worse even if we stop spewing CO2 into the air tomorrow.  I think we should test these processes and be prepared to use them.  It might be what we need to stop the worst of climate change.

July 26, 2021, 9:51 a.m.
Posts: 11494
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: Adam-West

Posted by: syncro

So it looks like we've might have about 20yrs left before things turn to crap.

A 1972 MIT study predicted that rapid economic growth would lead to societal collapse in the mid 21st century. A new paper shows we’re unfortunately right on schedule.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vindicates-1972-mit-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon

That's kinda what I'm banking on for not saving for retirement.

Retirement may seem like a quaint notion with all that is going on, but having the means to prepare and protect yourself from that collapse will like cost just as much.  We can't all fit in RM's bunker.  

I would take stories like this with a grain of salt though.  The graphs always have smooth lines and almost never accurately predict disruptions.

July 26, 2021, 10:28 a.m.
Posts: 1557
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

Retirement may seem like a quaint notion with all that is going on, but having the means to prepare and protect yourself from that collapse will like cost just as much.  We can't all fit in RM's bunker.  

I would take stories like this with a grain of salt though.  The graphs always have smooth lines and almost never accurately predict disruptions.

One of the things that I'm holding some hope for is new or advancing tech of some sort being able to make a huge dent in this issue. Considering how fast/far tech has advanced in the past 60yrs or so, there could be something develop in the next 30 years that we can't even imagine today. I wouldn't bank on it, but I think the possibility exists.

The one thing that we need on a humanity scale is a change in the way we view our existence. This includes our interactions with the planet and each other. Right now, modern society en large is completely disconnected from the repercussions of it's actions. Sure some people think about it now and then and a few might have a protest or two, but in general our day to day actions have no consideration for anyone but ourselves or anything but our pocketbooks. For example my idea of not accumulating new plastics in pretty much any form is looking pretty dismal. I can accept purchases where plastic in an integral part of the product on something like the new mitre saw I purchased recently, but the amount of unnecessary plastics when it comes to packaging is abysmal, notably with grocery/food purchases. I'm trying to bring my own plastic containers for certain things and you get some weird looks from people as well as the "but you'll have to pay more using that container" type of comments. I've responded with I'd rather pay the extra 5¢ than create more garbage. The look on peoples' faces says that makes sense, but it also say they DGAF and couldn't be bothered with dealing of the inconvenience of bringing their own container/bag to the store. To me this represents the type of disconnected thinking we need to break free from if we don't want to eat ourselves out of home.

July 26, 2021, 10:28 a.m.
Posts: 16664
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

I am starting to think that solar geoengineering might not be such a bad idea.  Even if we were carbon neutral tomorrow and changed how we grow food and replant forests, there is theoretically a 40 years lag before the climate will stabilize at that level.  Since we are not doing that we can easily add 20 years, so 60 more years of warming beyond what we see today.  That is an Earth very different than the one we live on.  The only option would be to counter it somehow.  Thoughts?

What do we do with the old panels after they've expired? Similar to electric car batteries past their shelf life - we don't have a good means to recycle them.

Why do you insist on making statements as if they are facts, when in reality they are completely untrue?

Forum jump: