40 years ago i had a t-shirt that said the world was running out of time...
Time won't help any more
I mean, we aren't totally screwed. Just climate will get worse and worse until we stop burning fossil fuels. It will eventually stabilize at whatever amount of carbon we end up at when we stop. It's just, how bad will it get in the meantime.
Won't stop us from mass migration, and deaths on an order of magnitude that makes covid look like a blip, and also mass extinction of a large majority of the species on earth. But, we can pull through (I think, maybe)...
You assume it will get better when we stop burning fuel but many things dont just get better when you stop doing what is bad. A lot of things have a point of no return, where you can't just undo all the damage that has been done
I'm not assuming, that assumption is rooted in science. I'm also not saying things will get better. What I am saying is that the climate will stabilize at whatever new normal there is with the amount of carbon in the carbon life cycle, that means whatever extremes exist at that point, will continue to exist.
mmmnope. Heard of the clathrate bomb?
There is a fuckton of methane locked in permafrost soils.
Once they start to melt, you get a chain reaction.
Methane is very potent, and will cause issues for sure. You're absolutely right about that. But it also has a much shorter half life than carbon does, so it doesn't have the same kind of long term effects as carbon does.
It has a much shorter half life but what does it degrade into?
Does science say when things will stabilise after we stop using coal and oil? I bet it's not immediate. I bet it will take a lot longer than many think if not hundreds of years just to stabilise into something that maybe isn't even liveable.
Yes, something like a hundred years or so before it stabilizes. I forget what the models are saying, bcz I don't do climate science, my fiance does, so I usually ask her these queations.
Also though there are already products being made in carbon negative processes including sequestered jet fuel and various building materials. The cost (economic and ecological) of power generation has fallen dramatically and continues to do so while design tools continue to improve, this enables better and more ecologically' sustainable infrastructure which will help increase the rate of transition to ecologically' sustainable living.
We absolutely will be pulling significant amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere in twenty or thirty years from now, both from bio processing (algae to plastic for example) and direct capture.
It's hard to guess what the world will look like in a hundred years but any model that assumes things will stop changing is just being silly.
Yeah, I've seen a lot of research on carbon sequestration, and I've not seen anything actually promising on it. We can't rely on processes that aren't in place, and aren't proven to work to pin the hopes of our species, when the real solution is right in front of us. Stop burning fossil fuels
Have you now? A lot of research, and nothing promising?
Tell me about the things you've seen research on, like the closest to being promising but not thing that you've read research on...
Should be easy because you're basically an expert in the tech, right?
I'm not am expert in it, my partner does research in climate adaptation, and there are people who do that research in her department. As far as I've heard, there isn't anything that promising on the horizon.
And I can't stress this enough, we should not be relying on tech to try to save us when all we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels. It's really that simple. But everybody wants business as usual, so we're putting our hopes in pipedream technology that doesn't exist hoping it will save us from ourselves. Seems pretty stupid to me.
Ha ok, changed a bit now hasn't it? So you talk to your partner in depth about these subjects but can't ask about it to help you answer the questions because of reasons...
What you actually mean is without doing any research you assumed something that fits with your preconceived dislike of technology solutions? Or maybe you just saw someone else say it so repeated it with a slightly exaggerated truthiness tone to and make it seem more believable.
Stop burning fossil fuels isn't something we can just do over night, especially when people fight against good alternatives - and double especially when people fight against them based on knee jerk emotional response without really knowing much about it...
Carbon based efuels are going to be a huge part in the transition to an ecologically sustainable society, the model using sequestered carbon and renewable power generation is just one of several incredibly promising areas of chemistry at the moment.
Carbon based efuels are going to be a huge part in the transition to an ecologically sustainable society, the model using sequestered carbon and renewable power generation is just one of several incredibly promising areas of chemistry at the moment.
Exactly, everybody thinks technology is going to save us from ourselves, and that's why we are fucked.
And for the record, I didn't ask my partner about any of this bcz she was out of town at a conference. Why would I bother her while she's working to settle a dumb internet argument?
Of course she was.
And now we see the real emotion behind your desire to dismiss tech solutions.
It's sad but I really think a lot of people would rather feel smug about the world burning than put out the fire.
I genuinely think a lot of the resistance to renewable adoption comes from people scarred that it'll work. Modern chemistry is absolutely amazing, for some reason their successes upset people - you see it everywhere, did you go as far to reject the vaccine? That's the same 'it must be bad it's science' thinking.
The USAF have performed huge studies on SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) and have concluded they're effective, reliable, and economically competitive - this isn't some hippy idealism or scientific fanboyism it's the cold calculated reality of the most advanced war machine in the world.
They already work, they tested them in all their engines and decided that an e-fuel made from sequestered carbon is the best solution - other saf have been used in transatlantic flights by commercial airlines for a while now, generally in a blended mix with kerosene but pure saf flights have been made.
It's not common yet because we don't have the infrastructure established to make them in significant quantities, this is changing with various facilities being built but it could change a lot quicker if there was a push to support transition technologies rather than a knee jerk anti science sentimentalism wrapped in fraudulent pretence of 'but I read all the research...' - this isn't a flat earth, vaccines aren't from the devil, and we're not going to drop oil use without a viable replacement.
We need carbon sequestration, we need to support research into that rather than pretending to care about the plant as some form of dunk on progress. It's just like the train line we tried to build in the UK, it would have cut down the ecological cost of cargo transport hugely and reduced the amount of lorries on the road significantly but eco warriors waged war on its construction attacking machinery, blocking it's path with tunnels, and endless propaganda against it that got pushed by people who hate progress in any form.
And remember this is only one of the promising technologies, I don't think it's even the most promising tbh but its one of the easier to explain and is incredibly promising. You of course know know all this because of the regular in detail conversations you have about it with your double doctor scientist partner who has a very busy schedule.
Dude, I have an aerospace engineering degree. Excuse yourself for making dumbest assumptions. I have not rejected any science. Are you like a troll or bot farm, or just bored? Yes, my partner was at a conference until last Wednesday. She's no longer at a conference, but I'm not going to go bother her with this frivolous internet argument. Eventually, yes, we will talk about this conversation I've had with you. I have talked about this very thing in the past, and she has said we need carbon sequestration at this point to stave off the worst effects of climate change, but at no point has she said we have a scalable solution to do it, or that she thinks we will do anything. Her research takes a very pessimistic viewpoint that we aren't going to do jackshit about climate change, so we are just going to have to try to adapt to it, which honestly, I agree with. Humans showed through the pandemic that they weren't up to the task of helping their fellow humans by doing something even as simple as wearing a piece of fabric over their face.
But, by all means, continue to make assumptions, and make yourself look like a presumptuous ass.
Ok so you don't have any substantive arguments but a lot more calls to unverifyable authority - your wife is welcome to take whatever stance she wants but if the core assumption of her work is that no solutions to climate change will prove effective then yes that's useful for understanding those eventualities but it's not a good way of evaluating potentially effective solutions or determinng what is likely to happen
And yes of course I already know you're going to claim that it's exactly what she does and that she a triple doctor in advanced whatever helps your cause this time... Ok. It's a shame she lost her voice and can't help you provide any meaningful arguments....
I'm in a poly relationship with all of NASA and they published a series of studies on the chemistry and economics of carbon sequestration which said carbon sequestration is a vital part of combatting climate change - though I'm sure your dad works for double NASA
And yes of course I already know you're going to claim that it's exactly what she does and that she a triple doctor in advanced whatever helps your cause this time
I already said what she does, climate adaptation. Why would I say she does anything else? You're just being obtuse now.
though I'm sure your dad works for double NASA
I mean, I do. But it's in a completely unrelated field to climate stuff, so doesn't really matter in this argument.
Ok well you're clearly the world authority on this, shame you can't give any meaningful arguments...
40 years ago i had a t-shirt that said the world was running out of time...
Time won't help any more
I mean, we aren't totally screwed. Just climate will get worse and worse until we stop burning fossil fuels. It will eventually stabilize at whatever amount of carbon we end up at when we stop. It's just, how bad will it get in the meantime.
Won't stop us from mass migration, and deaths on an order of magnitude that makes covid look like a blip, and also mass extinction of a large majority of the species on earth. But, we can pull through (I think, maybe)...
You assume it will get better when we stop burning fuel but many things dont just get better when you stop doing what is bad. A lot of things have a point of no return, where you can't just undo all the damage that has been done
I'm not assuming, that assumption is rooted in science. I'm also not saying things will get better. What I am saying is that the climate will stabilize at whatever new normal there is with the amount of carbon in the carbon life cycle, that means whatever extremes exist at that point, will continue to exist.
mmmnope. Heard of the clathrate bomb?
There is a fuckton of methane locked in permafrost soils.
Once they start to melt, you get a chain reaction.
Methane is very potent, and will cause issues for sure. You're absolutely right about that. But it also has a much shorter half life than carbon does, so it doesn't have the same kind of long term effects as carbon does.
It has a much shorter half life but what does it degrade into?
Does science say when things will stabilise after we stop using coal and oil? I bet it's not immediate. I bet it will take a lot longer than many think if not hundreds of years just to stabilise into something that maybe isn't even liveable.
Yes, something like a hundred years or so before it stabilizes. I forget what the models are saying, bcz I don't do climate science, my fiance does, so I usually ask her these queations.
Also though there are already products being made in carbon negative processes including sequestered jet fuel and various building materials. The cost (economic and ecological) of power generation has fallen dramatically and continues to do so while design tools continue to improve, this enables better and more ecologically' sustainable infrastructure which will help increase the rate of transition to ecologically' sustainable living.
We absolutely will be pulling significant amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere in twenty or thirty years from now, both from bio processing (algae to plastic for example) and direct capture.
It's hard to guess what the world will look like in a hundred years but any model that assumes things will stop changing is just being silly.
Yeah, I've seen a lot of research on carbon sequestration, and I've not seen anything actually promising on it. We can't rely on processes that aren't in place, and aren't proven to work to pin the hopes of our species, when the real solution is right in front of us. Stop burning fossil fuels
Have you now? A lot of research, and nothing promising?
Tell me about the things you've seen research on, like the closest to being promising but not thing that you've read research on...
Should be easy because you're basically an expert in the tech, right?
I'm not am expert in it, my partner does research in climate adaptation, and there are people who do that research in her department. As far as I've heard, there isn't anything that promising on the horizon. And I can't stress this enough, we should not be relying on tech to try to save us when all we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels. It's really that simple. But everybody wants business as usual, so we're putting our hopes in pipedream technology that doesn't exist hoping it will save us from ourselves. Seems pretty stupid to me.
Ha ok, changed a bit now hasn't it? So you talk to your partner in depth about these subjects but can't ask about it to help you answer the questions because of reasons...
What you actually mean is without doing any research you assumed something that fits with your preconceived dislike of technology solutions? Or maybe you just saw someone else say it so repeated it with a slightly exaggerated truthiness tone to and make it seem more believable.
Stop burning fossil fuels isn't something we can just do over night, especially when people fight against good alternatives - and double especially when people fight against them based on knee jerk emotional response without really knowing much about it...
Carbon based efuels are going to be a huge part in the transition to an ecologically sustainable society, the model using sequestered carbon and renewable power generation is just one of several incredibly promising areas of chemistry at the moment.
Exactly, everybody thinks technology is going to save us from ourselves, and that's why we are fucked.
And for the record, I didn't ask my partner about any of this bcz she was out of town at a conference. Why would I bother her while she's working to settle a dumb internet argument?
Of course she was.
And now we see the real emotion behind your desire to dismiss tech solutions.
It's sad but I really think a lot of people would rather feel smug about the world burning than put out the fire.
I genuinely think a lot of the resistance to renewable adoption comes from people scarred that it'll work. Modern chemistry is absolutely amazing, for some reason their successes upset people - you see it everywhere, did you go as far to reject the vaccine? That's the same 'it must be bad it's science' thinking.
The USAF have performed huge studies on SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) and have concluded they're effective, reliable, and economically competitive - this isn't some hippy idealism or scientific fanboyism it's the cold calculated reality of the most advanced war machine in the world.
They already work, they tested them in all their engines and decided that an e-fuel made from sequestered carbon is the best solution - other saf have been used in transatlantic flights by commercial airlines for a while now, generally in a blended mix with kerosene but pure saf flights have been made.
It's not common yet because we don't have the infrastructure established to make them in significant quantities, this is changing with various facilities being built but it could change a lot quicker if there was a push to support transition technologies rather than a knee jerk anti science sentimentalism wrapped in fraudulent pretence of 'but I read all the research...' - this isn't a flat earth, vaccines aren't from the devil, and we're not going to drop oil use without a viable replacement.
We need carbon sequestration, we need to support research into that rather than pretending to care about the plant as some form of dunk on progress. It's just like the train line we tried to build in the UK, it would have cut down the ecological cost of cargo transport hugely and reduced the amount of lorries on the road significantly but eco warriors waged war on its construction attacking machinery, blocking it's path with tunnels, and endless propaganda against it that got pushed by people who hate progress in any form.
And remember this is only one of the promising technologies, I don't think it's even the most promising tbh but its one of the easier to explain and is incredibly promising. You of course know know all this because of the regular in detail conversations you have about it with your double doctor scientist partner who has a very busy schedule.
Dude, I have an aerospace engineering degree. Excuse yourself for making dumbest assumptions. I have not rejected any science. Are you like a troll or bot farm, or just bored? Yes, my partner was at a conference until last Wednesday. She's no longer at a conference, but I'm not going to go bother her with this frivolous internet argument. Eventually, yes, we will talk about this conversation I've had with you. I have talked about this very thing in the past, and she has said we need carbon sequestration at this point to stave off the worst effects of climate change, but at no point has she said we have a scalable solution to do it, or that she thinks we will do anything. Her research takes a very pessimistic viewpoint that we aren't going to do jackshit about climate change, so we are just going to have to try to adapt to it, which honestly, I agree with. Humans showed through the pandemic that they weren't up to the task of helping their fellow humans by doing something even as simple as wearing a piece of fabric over their face.
But, by all means, continue to make assumptions, and make yourself look like a presumptuous ass.
Ok so you don't have any substantive arguments but a lot more calls to unverifyable authority - your wife is welcome to take whatever stance she wants but if the core assumption of her work is that no solutions to climate change will prove effective then yes that's useful for understanding those eventualities but it's not a good way of evaluating potentially effective solutions or determinng what is likely to happen
And yes of course I already know you're going to claim that it's exactly what she does and that she a triple doctor in advanced whatever helps your cause this time... Ok. It's a shame she lost her voice and can't help you provide any meaningful arguments....
I'm in a poly relationship with all of NASA and they published a series of studies on the chemistry and economics of carbon sequestration which said carbon sequestration is a vital part of combatting climate change - though I'm sure your dad works for double NASA
I already said what she does, climate adaptation. Why would I say she does anything else? You're just being obtuse now.
I mean, I do. But it's in a completely unrelated field to climate stuff, so doesn't really matter in this argument.
Ok well you're clearly the world authority on this, shame you can't give any meaningful arguments...