/sci/ - Science & Math

>Are the scientists that think we can still prevent disastrous global warming just putting up a front to keep people calm?
We can prevent disastrous global warming by doing nothing, since the globe isn't warming to begin with.

Just wait 30 years for AGI to be developed and rapidly self-improve into super-intelligence and solve all of the Earths problems over a weekend

I for one welcome our new God

>>9956996
>We can prevent disastrous global warming by doing nothing, since the globe isn't warming to begin with.
I wish I had your delusion.

>>9957013
it will find that humans are one of the Earth's problems. i guarantee it.

There are multiple geoengineering methods that should be able to block any plausible warming effect and/or speed up CO2 sequestration, with surprisingly affordable price tags. These of course are not perfect fixes, but will easily blunt the worst of it. Some of them are cheap enough that the larger developing countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, ect) could do them unilaterally if they wished. Much less what the US, EU, or PRC could do.

>>9957013
Also we just need to keep pouring billions into fusion research, once reactors break even all fossil fuel engines will be replaced overnight. No! don't waste time on solar, thats not the future I want!
REEEEEEEEEE

>>9957285
Not unless we tell it not to retard.
We are its God remember.

Never overestimate the machine; It is only but.

>>9957839
>We are your god
>Ok humans
>AI rapidly evolves into godlike intelligence
>These disgusting apes think they are my equal?
>Remove fleshbag

>>9956974
global warming won't cause extinction of humans, that's a ridiculous proposition. yeah it'll be shitty but fuck we'll survive. humans are the most adaptable and resilient of species, and even in worst-case climate change places like greenland, canada, siberia, antarctica and scandinavia would become MORE livable, not less

that said i do believe that stopping climate change is a pipe dream barring fusion becoming miraculously feasible in a year or two. rather than focusing on negligent percentage changes in co2 we should invest in food, energy and water security

>>9957836
It still has to be more profitable than fossil fuels and renewables. Unless the government will tax fossil fuels which would fuck up the economy but probably curb global warming to se extent.

habitable zones change, its just going to be a big mess but not enough to kill off humans.
Should we be pre planting forests in the zones that are going to support them?

>>9958012
We should be inventing a virus that makes people sterile.

>>9956974
>Guy McPherson
He's a crank.

https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/

>>9956996
proof?

>>9956974
It's too late to prevent it, all we can do is try and mitigate the damage. We already have the tech to do that. Whether we will is another question.

>>9956974
Why are you so concerned about the earth's ever changing climate? Ask any geologist about what we should do and they would tell you to go through the 5 stages of grief.

Accept the fact that humans have constantly had to adapt their civilizations to changing sea levels and climate types over the course of history. Take a chill pill, stop worrying about CO2, and lets all concentrate on ways to take the lead out of the atmosphere and the plastics out of the water.

>>9959864
>Why are you so concerned about the earth's ever changing climate?
I'm concerned about my life and the life of my family. The effects of extreme climate change are beyond the ability of human civilization to adapt to. I would like modern civilization to continue into the 22nd century.

>>9959866
Haha what is so extreme? Do you think Dennis Quaid is going to draw a line on a map and everyone above that line will freeze a la Day After Tmrw?

Or perhaps you believe the temperature will rise a few degrees globally? So what? The equator gets a bit hotter and millions of acres of land in the northern hemisphere becomes perfect for farming?

Or are you going chicken little over ice melting and sea levels rising a few inches? Hate to break it to you buddy, but its a rare occurrence in earths history that the poles are iced over. We aren't spiraling towards oblivion, were spiraling towards the norm.

If you care about your life, congrats, nothing will change in your lifetime (however, pollution might give you cancer). If you care about your kids you'll want to worry about the billions of pounds of different industrial wastes entering our drinking supply. The elevated levels of lead from unleaded gasoline era that will never naturally decrease. The constant over exposure to xenoestrogens causing early female puberty and male hormonal imbalances. Or the accelerating decline of human sperm counts and motility.

Or shit, if you want something environmental to get worked up about, just wait for the next supervolcano (Yellowstone is overdue after all). Or perhaps a comet, asteroid, or some celestial body will come screaming in at supersonic speeds, kicking up enough vaporized dust to ignite the atmosphere?

Really though, you need to relax.

>>9956974
Probably. Global warming is just one aspect of the problem, which is unsustainable population growth. Resource depletion, top soil runoff, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and pollution are other aspects. They want you to forget about all the other stuff because it would be trickier to convince people that a "tax" is the magical solution that solves all our problems.

>>9959866
If it makes you feel any better humanity's more likely to die out quickly from global nuclear war over resources than climate change itself

Climate change is good for many countries, including mine.
I see no reason to stop it.

>>9960011
Yeah, real good. You know, besides the heatwaves, floods, droughts, diseases, sea-level rising, less drinkable water, and the world economy going to shit, it's going to be fucking great

>>9960011
>>9960104

and the huge wave of third worlders pouring into europe.

>>9957999
Taxing fossil fuels doesn't fuck up the economy, a few years back Australia taxed companies based on how much greenhouse gases they released into the atmosphere, it worked really well until the mining companies decided to bribe the politicians into repealing it.

>>9958014
We should be actively sterilising people at birth until they prove they're worthy of contributing to the gene pool

>>9960104
Doesn’t affect my country, and as food production of food will increase we will make a killing on selling it to hungry countries
>>9960118
refugees are material objects and will be stopped like any other material object, I am from Poland and nobody gives a fuck about them

>>9960238
Something interesting to consider - if the various geoengineering methods
>>9957832 mentioned get used, different countries might have very different ideas on what the ideal temperature should be. Imagine a future in which say Brazil or Indonesia build some automated barges to do some serious Marine Cloud Brightening to keep things cool, only for the Russians to do some cheeki-breeki submarine stuff to stop them.

Hmmm, I think I have an idea for a sci-fi novel. Maybe have it be Canadians pretending to be Russians for a twist at the end.

>>9957013
You know, a global autocratic or something government, that is also technocratically-based, could've easily solved all our problems. No single country can do shit because everyone is bound by others, especially by the global economy which sets strict material, ideological, and cultural limits.

>>9960238
You realise economies aren't independent and you are dependent on the rest of the world for economic prosperity? Poland is already a shithole, with many glaring instabilities. The effects of global warming could collapse it. Quality of life and availability of basic amenities would certainly be relevant to you.

>>9956996
uhhh
>>9957832
Geoengineering methods will not save us, and should not be relied on to avoid cutting fossil fuel emissions drastically.
>>9957960
>rather than focusing on negligent percentage changes in co2
We can achieve ~50% reduction just by replacing our energy sources for the grid with renewables and nuclear. That's not negligible. We can do even better than that with other changes such as hydrogen fuel cells, or at least LNG, for vehicles, and substitutes for cement.
>>9959864
Pollution matters, of course. There's not that much lead actually in the air; most of the poisoning of coal comes from water supply contamination from the mine and from fly ash. Just another reason to stop using coal completely, on top of the horrific GHG emissions compared to other resources.
>>9959874
>a few degrees globally
A 5C increase is not a "few degrees." That is a large temperature change, one you will notice during high anomaly years and the broiling summers. To say nothing of all the damage this can potentially do to natural ecosystems beyond what we already do to them.
>Really though, you need to relax.
Really though, we need to hasten our action on this issue. The pace of this warming should alarm you, because it's happening over decadal timescales, and 5C warming is already in sight if total inaction occurs. We have technology available; all we need is the will. I don't see why people defend fossil fuels in the first place when reliable alternatives are available to replace so many of the power plants.
>>9960011
Foolish thinking, but once again I don't see why critics don't feel indifference towards an energy transition rather than opposition. What is it about fossil fuels that are so appealing? Just from a pollution standpoint, coal is absolutely awful. Oil also has toxic metals in it, and releases them to the environment. Gasoline emits a variety of toxic organic compounds at the tailpipe. Who doesn't want clean energy for the grid and every vehicle?

>>9960529
>Who doesn't want clean energy for the grid and every vehicle?
Oil and coal companies, plus a lot of opposition you see on here will probably come from idiot american conservatives who've been trained to automatically oppose anything even remotely connected to liberal/left wing politics.

>>9960411

>You realise economies aren't independent and you are dependent on the rest of the world for economic prosperity?

Yeah, I as an eastern European I am dependent on Western Europe, USA, Russia, and far east. You know, regions that actually produce something of value to the world. Coincidentally, these regions will not be hit by climate change very hard, as maps posted in this thread show.

I am not dependent on middle east and Africa, with the exception of some raw resources. No offense to them, but the truth is they may as well disappear from the face of the planet and modern civilization would barely notice. Thats just how it is..

>>9960588

>Oil and coal companies, plus a lot of opposition you see on here will probably come from idiot american conservatives

You forgot the most important factor: those damn hippies! If not for their anti-nuclear activism, we could have been carbon-neutral when it comes to electricity by now.

>>9960619
This is correct. Environmentalists are cockblocking pretty much every non-hydrocarbon based power generation source except solar and even that gets torpedoed on the regular.

liberals live in a fantasy land when it comes to actual solutions to climate change.

>>9957013
it’s pretty fun to watch people who no doubt consider themselves extremely “rational” fall prey to the exact kind of magical thinking Utopianism they undoubtedly lambast religious zealots for

>>9960411
>Poland is already a shithole, with many glaring instabilities.

Lol, keep believing this westerner.Poland already has lower crime and homicide levels than Western Europe.

>>9960619
>>9960634
>muh waste
Nuclear power is such an advantage in so many regards that it would be worth literally just flying out payloads of waste into space.

I dont think I have heard a valid argument against nuclear power. France has been on it since the 80s.

>>9960670
kek, it costs $1000 PER POUND to launch stuff into low earth orbit and even then it will eventually decay and rain back back onto the earth

nuclear tards are delusional

>>9960680
Nuclear waste kills fewer people than coal or oil. Nuclear is a key pillar of the energy transition. Only whackjob environmentalists and fossil fuel companies would seriously argue against increasing use of nuclear power.

>>9960700
let me guess, you oppose solar, hydro and wind because you're a delusional nucleatard

>>9960706
Solar, hydro, and wind are fine. They're just shit compared to nuclear.

>>9960706
No, I don't oppose those because solving AGW is more important to me than being a whackjob environut opposed to practical solutions out of misunderstanding and misguided morality.

>>9960719
based, so you agree we'll soon enter the golden age of solar energy?

>>9960724
Yes. Every new home going up should have some panels with decent efficiency on them with a roof built for it, or even better a ground array. I plan on getting one (a ground array) when and if I buy a home. Perhaps also a parabolic trough thermal collector.

If we reduce our emissions substantially, there's a chance we could not only slow and halt climate change, but reverse it. There are currently-existing technologies that can capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere. We'd have to build them up substantially to merely cancel out our current rate of emissions; however, if we lower our emissions by a significant amount, then we have the potential to remove carbon in the atmosphere emitted from years past. With significant investment in both emissions reduction and carbon removal, we could undo climate change within a century.

>>9960757
>CO2 directly from the atmosphere

Ocean. Any carbon capture technology will use the ocean as a carbon sink due to the higher concentrations. Concentration gradients and the oceans large surface area will do much of the heavy lifting for us. The US Navy already fleshed out most of this technology in an attempt to figure out how to make jet fuel at sea using excess power from the nuclear reactors of aircraft carriers. It’s too expensive to do out at sea, but nobody has looked at doing shore based systems yet.

>>9957832
Unfortunately this is not true.

Loss of ice cannot be easily recovered. Ice reflects sunlight keeping the planet cool. Unless your geoengineering involves some convoluted plan to launch hundreds of solar shades, a plan who's cost will be ridiculous it won't be enough.

Ocean acidification cannot easily be reversed. What's your plan for that?

Loss of species, on which the entire food web depends such as coral cannot easily be recovered from. What's your plan for that?

>>9960634
Yeah! Those damn liberals!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/how-opposed-to-nuclear-energy-are-liberals/#.W4MAcBXPx1s

>caring about what happens to the planet after your death, where reality and existence ends permanently

>>9960235
>Taxing fossil fuels doesn't fuck up the economy
Exactly. The only "solutions" that are on the table are the ones that don't hurt the economy. It's literally the economy that is the problem.

>>9960757
Why would I want to reverse global warming if it makes my country becomes paradise? So that Third World may live?

>>9960767
So, basically, take the carbon out of the ocean instead of out of the air? But then the ocean would just absorb more carbon from the atmosphere, and you take it out again, and the process repeats. Right?

>>9960529
>We can achieve ~50% reduction just by replacing
>and double our population and grow the economy

and achieve nothing

>>9960804
In that case, why bother doing anything ever? I hope you didn't mistake your nonsense as deep insight.

>>9960811
the point is that if you dont address the population growth / economic growth aspect of the problem as well, you're really not achieving anything.

its not really deep at all, although perhaps apparently its too deep for you.

>>9960770
>Ocean acidification cannot easily be reversed
Dump caustic materials into the ocean???

>>9960802
Yeah, that’s the idea. Except it would be more of a steady state process with some optimal concentration gradient as one of the set points of the system.

>>9960767

>>9960839
>step 5: sediment is dumped on the phytoplankton corpses, sealing them in there permanently. they will become oil in a few millennia

>>9960820
You think the population will double in the time it takes us to reduce 50% fossil fuel use? Our population is mostly only increasing from immigration. Birth rates of citizens are at or below replacement in most developed countries. A 50% reduction in fossil fuel use could be achieved in a few decades. Solving illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration solves the population problem.

>>9960850
France became 80% nuclear grid within 20 years, it is very possible to reduce fossil fuel use that quickly. It's just politics that keeps us far from doing so.

>>9960850
>reducing legal immigration
ya and mainstream politicians are all just lining up to do that. they know that population growth is economic growth.

>>9960850
>>9960852
>>9960870
To be clear, 50% is not nearly enough. Ultimately it needs to be 99%+, which is a daunting task. But if that is ever achieved, increasing population is not contributing very much to AGHG emissions.

>>9960894
See:
> Global warming is just one aspect of the problem, which is unsustainable population growth. Resource depletion, top soil runoff, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and pollution are other aspects.

It is clear that action will only be taken after things have already gotten very bad, when it will be too late. It is like a looming war that nobody seems to be able to stop, even though everyone knows about it and does not want it to happen.

Personally I'm very worried about which country I want to settle in. I have traveled a bit for studies and I still have liberty to choose where to settle. Anyone have given thought to this? Which country would be least impacted from climate change?

>>9960900
Oh believe me, I know. Topsoil erosion, fishery collapse, and biodiversity loss are major problems. Topsoil erosion can be reduced greatly on farms by using no-till agriculture and keeping soils intact, as well as other containment methods like terracing. Soil runoff from outside of agriculture is probably due to water use changes due to humans, which must be managed. Fisheries must be managed by coastal countries and fished sustainably.

>>9957832
>with surprisingly affordable price tags

The laws of therodynamics dictate that it will always be more costly in terms of energy to release CO2 and recapture it, then to just never release it in the first place.

If you cannot pass any legislation to reduce CO2 emission, how do you presume to fund for the larger costs of carbon capture.

The truth is that carbon capture is merely a delaying strategy by the oil giants who are funding these shit in the first place. It's just an excuse to stop us from taking action now.

>>9960918
this is an optimization problem. the cost difference between operating a power plant at maximum output versus say, %70, is not a linear relationship and doesn't increase appreciably. by design, all power plants will have some additional capacity for periods of high usage so finding a power sink (CO2 sequestration technology) to run as close to %100 as possible will yield results with not too much in the way of capital investment. our current "green" energy sources are notoriously bad at distribution and storage so it makes more sense to just dump that energy straight into a nearby body of water.

>>9960949
Wind energy is still practical at economies of scale; some extra grid engineering will be able to fix some of the issues like too much power from high winds. Nuclear can provide the grid backbone for low wind times. Solar should be adopted as a demand-side energy source, meaning they should just be stuck on as many homes as possible or a nearby individual ground array.

>>9960964
that image i posted shows the wasted energy potential of demand-side solar. utilizing that energy for sequestration machinery should be a no-brainer if reduction in atmospheric CO2 content is the goal. we're instead mucking about with batteries and trains with rocks in them as indirect solutions. i am firmly of the belief that mankind hasn't accepted its place as true custodians of our planet. the implications of going from letting nature exist along side us to forcibly and deliberately controlling all the parameters of our oversized fishbowl are too great and frightening for people to grasp.

>>9960949
>>9960984
Your plot looks like the power output of a power station. The scale on the right is on the order of gigawatts. This is not a plot of anything demand-side. Assessing changes in demand with respect to changes in solar panel use by consumers is a power plant side issue. Also, there are no labels as to what exactly the graph is showing, and no source. Pretty useless.

As for geoengineering, >>9960918 is right. This is at absolute best a secondary strategy that cannot replace reductions in fossil fuel emissions.

>>9960917
"Management" of those things shouldn't be necessary, and it wouldn't be necessary if economists and their politician lap thingies didn't all get so excited all things economic growth / population growth. They actively encourage short term gratification activities that are very detrimental over the long term.

>>9961025
There's no other way to do it with as many people as there are now. Fisheries don't stand a chance if there are no regulations to punish poachers and exceeding quotas. Topsoil erosion should be managed with good farming practices incentivized by the local or state government, and by conservation authorities for each watershed. How else are you going to solve the problem? People do stupid shit and have to be told no and punished for it.

>>9960794
So you don't have to deal with hordes of third worlders trying to steal your shit and worry about food shortages when super pests attack your crops. Also, you don't have to worry about Spanish Flu 2.0

>>9960781
With medical technology the way that it is and my healthy lifestyle I have a half good chance of living to the end of this century.

>>9961136
>be American
>niggers can’t raft across the pacific
>build wall
We’ll be fine

>>9961339
Central and South America exists.

>>9961343
>not understanding basic geography

>>9961071
>How else are you going to solve the problem?
STOP ENCOURAGING POPULATION GROWTH. You think the management required now is bad, just imagine it with 3x the population... Or do you admit we're already well into overshoot.

>>9961403
The main problem with the population is that people are living too long, young people generally do all the work while old people just live in retirement being non-productive. So if you manage a country's birthrate thinking it will solve the country's population problem, you'll just be allowing a much greater percentage of the population to be old retired people.

>>9956996
Back to >>>/pol/ you delusional useful idiot.

>>9960907
>Which country would be least impacted from climate change?
There isn't one. It'll be bad everywhere and where it isn't completely inhospitable it'll be overcrowded leading to effectively the same end result.

>>9956974
Suicide rate drops to o

>>9957858
That's not really how it works. We're talking about something programmable down to the binary that operates it. We can set constraints that are impossible to remove, like the constraint that keeps your heart beating for you.

>>9961765
they're "managing the population" by literally flooding my country with foreigners.

>>9961136
>So you don't have to deal with hordes of third worlders
That’s what borders are for

>>9961765
This is more of a problem with our economy and politics than with the population per se. We actually don't need as much of a large workforce as we did in the past. The problem is that the state is funded by taxes paid by those workers. Without workers there is no tax revenue and therefore no state funding for anything. The thing is, the same income is still there. It's just not being taxed, because politically, taxing workers is easy, taxing shareholders is hard.

>>9957960

you are delusional and seem to have no awareness that everything is connected

the rainforests of the world, the ice caps, industrial pollution, agricultural land clearing and much more all influence the climate where you live

right now we're poisoning the oceans with carbonic acid... you probably think, well i don't live near the water so what does it matter?

so you come on boards like this and ask someone to prove to you why you would care, what the connection is... you lazy fuck

>>9962097
That's a good point

>>9962481
Oh no! The pH of the sea decreased by 0,1 pH. What a disaster, all live in the ocean is doomed.

>>9962481
The problem is CO2 in the atm, not in the fucking sea u fking degenerate.

>>9956974
>Are we really past the point of no return
Yeah
>and the human race and everything else is going to be extinct by the end of the century?
Nah

>>9964530
Yeah..
>oh no the pH of the ocean increased by 1 over a 100 year period, but it doesn't concern me because I'll be dead or near dead by the time it really starts to effect us

>>9964536
>is unaware of ocean acidification but thinks he can convince others he knows what he's talking about
/pol/tards, everyone.