Excuse me redditor, but the paradox comes from the basic foundation of "green energy." We're told that climate change will displace people and create migration, and yet using literally millions of gallons of water to leech salt fields is displacing shit loads of people. Untop of it we now have environmentalists complaining about forests being eaten by the public sector on order to sell off, chop down, and build solar farms
We know that burning shit isn't the only way to get energy and in the span of decades or centuries that greenhouse gases will at least make agriculture impossible and cause huge famines. Its happening now
Anyone who isn't a total that knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that the status quo is going to get a lot of people killed
>Co2 kills agriculture
You are moronic and probably a cultist
2 years ago
Anonymous
Heat and drought kills agriculture. The argument is that CO2 will disrupt climate patterns and cause famines.
Regardless, the way forward is with clean and reliable energies like nuclear and deep geothermal. Electric vehicles and battery storage are useful technologies, but we still need actually cheap and plentiful sources of energy to create wealth, which isn't happening with the current paradigm.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Lithium powered everything is clean, reliable, and efficient
Hahahahahah wtf are you talking about? Spent a lot of time on r/science?
For traveling and other ventures, Diesel and other blended fuels are clearly the most efficient and environmentally friendly, which is ironic considering the "green countries" are putting them on the chopping block first
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Diesel and other blended fuels are clearly the most efficient and environmentally friendly, which is ironic considering the "green countries" are putting them on the chopping block first
Those countries "plan" is not about the environment, but about making poor people, the bottom 95% of society, less mobile and more dependent on big government.
That's why western countries and socialist political parties like the Democrats, Labor Party, etc. are artificially raising oil and gas prices, to stick it to the poor people.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What I find to be ironic is how much "environmentalists" have caused more harm. Ive lived to see plastic bags replace paper "to save the trees" and now they are clogging water ways. Also remember watching Speed Network back in 2002 seeing dudes use old cooking oil in their converted Diesel Honda.. Never to be heard so ce
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes Anon, this valuable thing everyone needs is getting expensive as less of it is around and more people want it. It's a conspiracy against you!
2 years ago
Anonymous
There definitely is a deliberate campaign of under investment into oil in order to get people to switch to renewables.
Likewise the war in Ukraine for example is highly motivated by Europe's shifting energy economy and the US response to the war (and possibly their hawkishness before the war) is influenced by their relative indifference to high gas prices (as it helps to transition towards green energy).
The objective though is not to make people poor as such (beyond just regular buisness competition), they have a genuine interest in reducing the most harmful effects of climate change, at least harmful to their pocket anyway.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>kewise the war in Ukraine for example is highly motivated by Europe's shifting energy economy
Germany shifted to using COAL once Russian gas/oil supplies were tightened. Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. Honestly, I don't think modern society can survive without it. We need degrowth.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>We need degrowth.
I've been saying this for over a decade. Not only because growth leads to ever increasing pressure on life providing ecosystems and the greater the rate of change the greater the pressure put on them, but also to lower the consumption rate of other non-renewable resources essential to the preservation of civilization for as long as possible. But it'll never happen because the finance/commerce elites in charge of western governments absolutely require growth to maintain power. So they'll convince themselves that everything is hunky dory putting all our chips on pie in the sky bullshit like renewables and nuclear until the global economy undergoes and epic collapse and billions die of starvation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>le. But it'll never happen because the finance/commerce elites in charge of western governments absolutely require growth to maintain power.
Its the same elites you lament who are pushing this climate change stuff.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the difference is i think the elites are fricking stupid... you think they're bond villain evil geniuses or soemthing
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also the medieval warming period saved humanity. Or if it's anything like climate change during the Bronze Age then theres clearly nothing that can be done
2 years ago
Anonymous
People fricking constantly and popping out dozens of children is what causes famine.
2 years ago
Anonymous
based and niggepilled
2 years ago
Anonymous
What causes famine?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Heat doesnt cause drought. The poles are frozen and are technically a desert, the tropics are drenched in rain, theres simply no relation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Non sequitur. Too much heat causes water to evaporate and be carried off by wind. Then vegetation dies and the soil can't hold on to moisture, so there isn't any water left for rain.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Too much heat causes water to evaporate and be carried off by wind.
It also causes more evaporation of seawater that ultimately comes back as rain. It makes no difference, you get the same rain because evaporation is limited by the sun
2 years ago
Anonymous
CO2 is the wild minority of atmospheric greenhouse gases, energy absorption increases by the logarithm of CO2 concentration and not linearly, and there aren't that many fossil fuels remaining in general.
There are zero situations where CO2 leads to major global warming. It may alter global warming, but that carbon will be fixed into new growth and stabilize at a moderately higher value. The primary risk of high CO2 concentrations is that it may acidify ocean water and damage marine wildlife, but it can only significantly disrupt and not destroy the aquatic biosphere.
Frankly, what's going to happen is what we're seeing right now, where gas becomes permanently more expensive and there's a large market incentive to develop alternatives. It's fairly likely that in a century the world will be far more dependent on agrarian lifestyles and public transportation, not that CO2 will eliminate all agriculture.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I do not understand this idea that we will run out of fossil fuels. People in the past have estimated exactly when and how fossil fuels will burn up, but all that's happened is that people have found other ways to get oil. By either inventing new techniques or surveying for it. Everything in this planet is scarce, there are no resources that are infinite, even solar panels and wind mills need space and maintenance. The worst possible outcome would be limiting development in one direction, when there are other alternatives.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The problem is that the rate of generation of fossil fuels is very low. You are right that there is scarce space and labor to maintain alternative energy sources, I don't mean to say that green energy magically solves all our problems. It's an energy balance issue. There is a finite amount of energy. When chemical bonds are broken to form waste heat, there's a reduction in our ability to actually sustain development. Over an infinitely long period, all energy converts into waste heat, entropy, but over a short term period the size of human civilization is limited by the rate at which sources of useful energy can be generated. This is the distinction between Energy Generators and Energy Carriers.
Oil cannot actually function as the basis of an economy, not because oil is rare, or because CO2 is bad, but because oil is an Energy Carrier. The actual source of the energy we are consuming is bioaccumulated carbon bonds due to fixation by plants, which decays into crude oil under the right circumstances. The rate at which this process occurs is extremely slow, which means that an economy based on it can only be extremely small, much smaller than our current economy. The modern industrial revolution is caused by the massive accumulation of this Energy Carrier due to sparse use, over the course of millions of years. A natural human economy measured per capita is probably equivalent to 18th-19th century Britain if we factor in green technologies. As we run through the oil supply, investment into oil companies will stagnate and decay, which we already see occurring. That said, there's no reason our timescale could be anything we see in our lifetimes. Coal is a similar energy carrier and has survived 200+ years, and only started to decay over the last 50 years or so.
There's nothing wrong with uranium, you can eat it and be fine. See: Galen Winsor.
I know it's you, Frank.
>energy absorption increases by the logarithm of CO2 concentration and not linearly, and there aren't that many fossil fuels remaining in general
CO2 emissions increased exponentially, so what is your point?
>There are zero situations where CO2 leads to major global warming
Already has. Pic related.
Is there any particular reason I should care about a 3W/m^2 increase other than that you tell me it's scary?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is there any reason why you claimed CO2 can't cause major global warming when it already has?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I do not see why the chemical bonds of oil are relevant. Heat death is far beyond the reaches of the human species on a whole. We still have very much to learn about heat itself.
Your assumption that growth is infinite is a misconception. What has and is simply happening is the use and development of resources that are already existing, and the continuous expansion and expectation for those resources. However I do understand why you'd see such growth as infinite, as the very essence of this economic principle is constantly stressing what is tolerable to the buyer and what is possible with current input, both of which are more robust than anyone could ever realize. What has happened in recent times is the increasing predictability industrialism has provided for, which has led to massive expansion and creation of new and old economic sectors, of which there will always be unrealized gains for, because resources are scarce, and even if we reach for the stars and further expand tenfold, there will still be scarcity.
Again I will stress, I have faith that humanity will find a way to meet its energy demands, there are other, much more scarcer things than C2H1 (I know the chemical structure is not that simple, but I think you'll understand) that humanity has allocated very well. With that being said humanity also does a great deal at thwarting its own alternatives, whether its petrol or lithium.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>energy absorption increases by the logarithm of CO2 concentration and not linearly, and there aren't that many fossil fuels remaining in general
CO2 emissions increased exponentially, so what is your point?
>There are zero situations where CO2 leads to major global warming
Already has. Pic related.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lel, I was curious so I looked into it and this paper puts an average global irradiance in January of 2850 W/m^2, while in the peak of the summer summer it's 7770 W/m^2.
Wiki puts average global radiative forcing at ~300, so we're talking about a 1% increase in global radiative forcing, equivalent to a change of <0.1% in average global irradiance.
https://en.wikipedia org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
You just pulled a graphic and said "OOH! SCARY" With zero context.
"Oh no! The number of Russian invasions of Ukraine increased by an infinite percentage this year! Surely this harbors violent and dangerous times for us all!
Is there any reason why you claimed CO2 can't cause major global warming when it already has?
I asked you a simple elaborating question to get to the root of the data you presented, which could have changed my mind on the issue, but instead of explaining the data you resort to passive aggressive comments. Are you a woman by any chance?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Lel, I was curious so I looked into it and this paper puts an average global irradiance in January of 2850 W/m^2, while in the peak of the summer summer it's 7770 W/m^2.
OK, and what does that have to do with radiative forcing? Solar radiative forcing is -0.02 W/m^2.
>Wiki puts average global radiative forcing at ~300
Where?
>so we're talking about a 1% increase in global radiative forcing
No, you're terribly confused. CO2 has increased the amount of radiative forcing by 385%
>You just pulled a graphic and said "OOH! SCARY" With zero context.
The context is your claim that CO2 cannot cause major global warming. The graph shows it already has. Your inability to understand this is caused by your complete ignorance of what you're trying to argue about, not lack of context.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I asked you a simple elaborating question
Not really. You asked me why you should care about something. Why would I care what you care about? You don't even know what you're talking about and probably don't want to know. If you want me to elaborate on anything i actually said, then ask.
Reasonable anon, the paradox does indeed come from the permise that green energy is 'le good' while other sources bad. Mining of rare metals contradicts this, and at the very least deserves a sound explanation. So does the lifetime of a solar panel, and the efficiency per $ it's allowed in said life.
There are like 3 people in the entire Salar de Uyuni and that's not even the main way we get lithium, most of it comes from spodumene mines that don't even take up that much space. The impact of mining lithium and other renewable energy materials is way lower than oil and gas drilling, let alone coal mining. Then you factor in the air quality reduction from burning it and it's not even close.
The atacama flats are literally the most barren place on the planet.
Regardless, the objective of fossil fuel divestment is to limit GHG caused climate change, not to save the whales or whatever.
>The atacama flats are literally the most barren place on the planet.
Yes, which makes it even more insane to hear how much water is diverted their on order to soak in salt
No mining is considered "eco friendly" by anyone except the mining companies and their shills.
Right now CO2 is the most immediate threat to the environment globally and so any limited local damage is considered better than continued global damage.
If you have a solution to the global issues that doesn't create local issues post it.
Here is the only way to solve the climate crisis:
1. Nuclear energy as the primary energy source everywhere. The development of new technologies as well as economies of scale will drive the cost of nuclear down to the point that it won't even make sense use other technologies. Unless you are in an area where earthquakes or fricking volcanoes are a serious threat, nuclear is the only technology that is going to make sense.
2. Solar panels only on top of buildings, it doesn't make fricking sense to waste millions of acres of land on solar farms which could just be replaced by nuclear that takes up 1/100 of the area. Solar farms in places besides deserts are just using up land that could be occupied by plants to remove C02 from the atmosphere. Deserts are the only place where solar farms would make any sense.
3. Wind in places that are actually extremely windy, still have the majority of power generated from nuclear, but this is also viable. Figure out how to fricking design the blades to be recycleable.
4. If safer nuclear technologies, like thorium reactors, are somehow infeasible, then stable rich countries can just sell energy to poorer neighbors thanks to advances in high voltage DC transmission (see the Australia Singapore electrical line being built). There could be some agreed upon "subsidy" so that this electricity is sold for cheap to poorer countries, this way liberals can pat themselves on the back for the reversing the "wrong doings their ancestors did".
Benefits: no emissions, high density energy production, no need for any stupid fricking batteries, don't need to replace solar and wind farms every 15 years as nuclear plants can be refurbished to last 40-80 years, poorer countries get their development subsidized due to low energy costs, rich countries actually benefit as they get massive energy and research industries which keep jobs in the country, places that are water scarce can use the high density nuclear energy to desalinate sea water.
Solar and wind are so much cheaper utility-scale that it would be senseless to not use them. Land plants are pretty shitty at pulling CO2 from the atmosphere and you're typically replacing desert/grassland anyway so as long as you're not flattening whole ecosystems does it really matter?
They are cheaper because a reactor hasn't been designed or built since the 70s. I guarantee you if they were being built at the same rate as solar and wind farms are, and the Yucca mountain complex was operational, it would be cheaper per kw/h and you wouldn't need everyone getting batteries. Plants may be shitty at pulling CO2 but they are better than nothing. Currently the majority of the world's produced solar panels only break even carbon wise if they are installed in deserts or in mountainous regions like Colorado. It doesn't make sense to use solar farms to power anything north of Missouri.
>I guarantee you [...] it would be cheaper per kw/h
"Trust me bro" or are there publications on this topic? Using old power plants should reduce the cost because you don't have to build new ones. >It doesn't make sense to use solar farms to power anything north of Missouri.
Why not? They last longer and output the same energy over their lifespan.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There are thorium reactor designs that are ridiculously efficient and impossible to melt down from decades ago, they were ignored in favour of enriched uranium because a thorium reactor can't make nuclear weapons. Furthermore the oil industry campaigned against nuclear vehemently, when in actual fact radon releases from coal mining do more damage than any nuclear disaster ever has (disasters caused by greed, idiocy or corruption mostly)
For example, Chernobyl wouldn't have melted down when the control rods were reinserted after the emergency shutoff was released if they weren't tipped with graphite. Likewise, Fukushima was meant to be flooded with seawater to prevent a meltdown. Instead it wasn't because that would ruin the reactor and those in charge wanted to try to save it. Nuclear disasters are caused exclusively by incompetence and greed, which can both be eliminated, and safety features can make it so that even in the event of incompetence or greed, a plug will melt and drain the fuel into a special tank to guarantee no meltdowns.
Frankly I don't care about the environmental impact of oil, I think global warming is an unscientific hoax based on a terrible lack of data, I just know that nuclear could be cheaper, safer, last longer and would open up new possibilities like desalination or hydrogen production or whatever other stupid shit you can think of
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thorium is a meme
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I think global warming is an unscientific hoax based on a terrible lack of data,
Yet we have data of several areas with severe spikes in temperatures. Southern Africa is beating all it's historical heat records one after the other.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not just SA, virtual everywhere. The hottest ten years in the UK since 1884 were all after 2002. People who don't believe in climate change are mostly people pretending to do so for profits.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>incompetence and greed >can be eliminated
2 years ago
Anonymous
yeah, that was funny as frick. based nuclear naifs.
You'd be horrified to know that the generations of moronic "college grads" these days are pretty incapable. Finland recently had all sorts of issues trying to build a new nuclear plant simply due to the fact that the most experienced workers on the subject were 60+ years old
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that the most experienced workers on the subject were 60+ years old
You reap what you sow
2 years ago
Anonymous
Show me any scientific field or workplace where that isn't the case.
1. Not every area can or should use nuclear and it's not wise to force it on them like a Technocrap. You can't ignore the fact you still NEED oil and gas for manufacturing, transportation and other things. Also energy markets widely vary, some natural gas is cheap, others they have hydro and solar, others use nuclear because they have no alternative.
2. There's vela ways to align panels anon. Some crops or things actually grow better under shade from a tree or other things so a farm in a hot climate with solar panels as shade to help certain crops grow would help.
>4. If safer nuclear technologies, like thorium reactors, are somehow infeasible, then stable rich countries can just sell energy to poorer neighbors thanks to advances in high voltage DC transmission (see the Australia Singapore electrical line being built).
and energy prices can fluctuate as seen with the EU
>There could be some agreed upon "subsidy" so that this electricity is sold for cheap to poorer countries, this way liberals can pat themselves on the back for the reversing the "wrong doings their ancestors did".
and transporting that energy tends to face loss the farther out they go. Real talk it's better having them get energy from a nearby neighbour or themselves then get it from a developed nation who can use it to control you if you do something you don't like because we all know the west loves doing that with aid as is.
Mining isn't eco friendly but it's required no matter what. If you're trying to ask about batteries then yes, it's completely unsustainable. A molten metal battery or some other system focused on providing cheap energy storage at a grid level will be required.
A place like America can use solar panels to great effect. They have plenty of land that is sparsely populated and that gets high solar irradiance. Combined with the above (better battery systems) it's the best mid-term solution. Unfortunately nuclear, while much better, has been stalled and held up too long. Were it allowed to advance and be built like normal throughout its lifetime then it would be the dominant source of power. But we don't live in that world. At this point it would be better to focus on the aforementioned for now until fusion power plants start coming online. Like you said, paving over endless swathes of land with solar panels is not a good idea. Solar power is a very low density power source and so will only work to sustain out needs in the interim. Ultimately we must pursue fusion power in order to make the price of electricity itself negligible and to have electricity available wherever necessary and in a dense form.
How do you stop nuclear reactors from turning into giant dirty bombs during war time?
Total nuclear retaliation in the event of a direct strike on a nuclear reactor.
Solar and wind are so much cheaper utility-scale that it would be senseless to not use them. Land plants are pretty shitty at pulling CO2 from the atmosphere and you're typically replacing desert/grassland anyway so as long as you're not flattening whole ecosystems does it really matter?
We need like 100x more nuclear and 100x more solar.
Put solar panels in every fricking parking lot for fricks sake.
>people as fuel
you feed the simple carbohydrates and force them to move stuff with a whip
sure they won't be as efficient as fossil fuels
but fundamentally they will accomplish the same thing
Mining is usually not really destructive, and the area regrows quickly once the mine is abandoned, and often with otherwise rare species to boot. Reclamation projects are a scam to pry money out of governments.
In general you can do whatever you want in deserts. The only good environments are savanah, forests, jungles and wetlands. Theres barely nothing alive in a desert.
I love how the climate cultists literally cannot fathom a scenario I. Which the weather isn't getting ultra scary. The Earth and weather is fine, you little homosexuals are getting duped. >Inb4 some redditor spends 2 seconds googling an IPCC study and acts like they're informed
No human activity is eco friendly, ecological-minded people want to reduce ecological damage to some level that nature can deal with, wild animals and plants can deal with modest amounts of pollution and some reduction in their habitats, beyond a threshold they die
Yeah, it's ironic but one of the major opponents to renewables now are environmental groups. There was this big Nevada solar farm that got blocked by an ATV rental, some commies (IIRC Extinction Revolution), and the Sierra Club
I know this will be hard to read, especially for our american friends -
how about just using less things?
well OP, its not that great and has to be seen as a stopgap, but lithium can be recycled once its been used. we have to start doing less harm immediately until we find something the economytards and conspiract tards will go along with. oh well. PS using the internet isnt great either...
I can't tell you at what time I will take my next shit, but I can tell you that I shit on average ~300 times per year. If that increases to 400 times, that's a significant rise and I don't need to tell you the hour of my next shit
Correct. Weather is determined by chaotic fluid dynamics of the atmosphere. Climate is determined by how much energy is in the atmosphere, not how it moves around. They aren't comparable.
From what I've seen this has always been a tension for environmentalists promoting these technologies
You're delusional if you don't think it's mentioned all the time
How humanity is capable of taking shit from underground and altering entire landscapes worldwide because me want magic rock that helps me go from A to B unironically makes me hard.
>EVERYTHING HAS TO BE COMPLETELY GOOD OR IT'S WORTHLESS
Autism or oil shill?
Excuse me redditor, but the paradox comes from the basic foundation of "green energy." We're told that climate change will displace people and create migration, and yet using literally millions of gallons of water to leech salt fields is displacing shit loads of people. Untop of it we now have environmentalists complaining about forests being eaten by the public sector on order to sell off, chop down, and build solar farms
Also them windmills.. They require no oil, eh?
We know that burning shit isn't the only way to get energy and in the span of decades or centuries that greenhouse gases will at least make agriculture impossible and cause huge famines. Its happening now
Anyone who isn't a total that knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that the status quo is going to get a lot of people killed
>Co2 kills agriculture
You are moronic and probably a cultist
Heat and drought kills agriculture. The argument is that CO2 will disrupt climate patterns and cause famines.
Regardless, the way forward is with clean and reliable energies like nuclear and deep geothermal. Electric vehicles and battery storage are useful technologies, but we still need actually cheap and plentiful sources of energy to create wealth, which isn't happening with the current paradigm.
>Lithium powered everything is clean, reliable, and efficient
Hahahahahah wtf are you talking about? Spent a lot of time on r/science?
For traveling and other ventures, Diesel and other blended fuels are clearly the most efficient and environmentally friendly, which is ironic considering the "green countries" are putting them on the chopping block first
>Diesel and other blended fuels are clearly the most efficient and environmentally friendly, which is ironic considering the "green countries" are putting them on the chopping block first
Those countries "plan" is not about the environment, but about making poor people, the bottom 95% of society, less mobile and more dependent on big government.
That's why western countries and socialist political parties like the Democrats, Labor Party, etc. are artificially raising oil and gas prices, to stick it to the poor people.
What I find to be ironic is how much "environmentalists" have caused more harm. Ive lived to see plastic bags replace paper "to save the trees" and now they are clogging water ways. Also remember watching Speed Network back in 2002 seeing dudes use old cooking oil in their converted Diesel Honda.. Never to be heard so ce
Yes Anon, this valuable thing everyone needs is getting expensive as less of it is around and more people want it. It's a conspiracy against you!
There definitely is a deliberate campaign of under investment into oil in order to get people to switch to renewables.
Likewise the war in Ukraine for example is highly motivated by Europe's shifting energy economy and the US response to the war (and possibly their hawkishness before the war) is influenced by their relative indifference to high gas prices (as it helps to transition towards green energy).
The objective though is not to make people poor as such (beyond just regular buisness competition), they have a genuine interest in reducing the most harmful effects of climate change, at least harmful to their pocket anyway.
>kewise the war in Ukraine for example is highly motivated by Europe's shifting energy economy
Germany shifted to using COAL once Russian gas/oil supplies were tightened. Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. Honestly, I don't think modern society can survive without it. We need degrowth.
>We need degrowth.
I've been saying this for over a decade. Not only because growth leads to ever increasing pressure on life providing ecosystems and the greater the rate of change the greater the pressure put on them, but also to lower the consumption rate of other non-renewable resources essential to the preservation of civilization for as long as possible. But it'll never happen because the finance/commerce elites in charge of western governments absolutely require growth to maintain power. So they'll convince themselves that everything is hunky dory putting all our chips on pie in the sky bullshit like renewables and nuclear until the global economy undergoes and epic collapse and billions die of starvation.
>le. But it'll never happen because the finance/commerce elites in charge of western governments absolutely require growth to maintain power.
Its the same elites you lament who are pushing this climate change stuff.
the difference is i think the elites are fricking stupid... you think they're bond villain evil geniuses or soemthing
Also the medieval warming period saved humanity. Or if it's anything like climate change during the Bronze Age then theres clearly nothing that can be done
People fricking constantly and popping out dozens of children is what causes famine.
based and niggepilled
What causes famine?
Heat doesnt cause drought. The poles are frozen and are technically a desert, the tropics are drenched in rain, theres simply no relation.
Non sequitur. Too much heat causes water to evaporate and be carried off by wind. Then vegetation dies and the soil can't hold on to moisture, so there isn't any water left for rain.
>Too much heat causes water to evaporate and be carried off by wind.
It also causes more evaporation of seawater that ultimately comes back as rain. It makes no difference, you get the same rain because evaporation is limited by the sun
CO2 is the wild minority of atmospheric greenhouse gases, energy absorption increases by the logarithm of CO2 concentration and not linearly, and there aren't that many fossil fuels remaining in general.
There are zero situations where CO2 leads to major global warming. It may alter global warming, but that carbon will be fixed into new growth and stabilize at a moderately higher value. The primary risk of high CO2 concentrations is that it may acidify ocean water and damage marine wildlife, but it can only significantly disrupt and not destroy the aquatic biosphere.
Frankly, what's going to happen is what we're seeing right now, where gas becomes permanently more expensive and there's a large market incentive to develop alternatives. It's fairly likely that in a century the world will be far more dependent on agrarian lifestyles and public transportation, not that CO2 will eliminate all agriculture.
I do not understand this idea that we will run out of fossil fuels. People in the past have estimated exactly when and how fossil fuels will burn up, but all that's happened is that people have found other ways to get oil. By either inventing new techniques or surveying for it. Everything in this planet is scarce, there are no resources that are infinite, even solar panels and wind mills need space and maintenance. The worst possible outcome would be limiting development in one direction, when there are other alternatives.
The problem is that the rate of generation of fossil fuels is very low. You are right that there is scarce space and labor to maintain alternative energy sources, I don't mean to say that green energy magically solves all our problems. It's an energy balance issue. There is a finite amount of energy. When chemical bonds are broken to form waste heat, there's a reduction in our ability to actually sustain development. Over an infinitely long period, all energy converts into waste heat, entropy, but over a short term period the size of human civilization is limited by the rate at which sources of useful energy can be generated. This is the distinction between Energy Generators and Energy Carriers.
Oil cannot actually function as the basis of an economy, not because oil is rare, or because CO2 is bad, but because oil is an Energy Carrier. The actual source of the energy we are consuming is bioaccumulated carbon bonds due to fixation by plants, which decays into crude oil under the right circumstances. The rate at which this process occurs is extremely slow, which means that an economy based on it can only be extremely small, much smaller than our current economy. The modern industrial revolution is caused by the massive accumulation of this Energy Carrier due to sparse use, over the course of millions of years. A natural human economy measured per capita is probably equivalent to 18th-19th century Britain if we factor in green technologies. As we run through the oil supply, investment into oil companies will stagnate and decay, which we already see occurring. That said, there's no reason our timescale could be anything we see in our lifetimes. Coal is a similar energy carrier and has survived 200+ years, and only started to decay over the last 50 years or so.
I know it's you, Frank.
Is there any particular reason I should care about a 3W/m^2 increase other than that you tell me it's scary?
Is there any reason why you claimed CO2 can't cause major global warming when it already has?
I do not see why the chemical bonds of oil are relevant. Heat death is far beyond the reaches of the human species on a whole. We still have very much to learn about heat itself.
Your assumption that growth is infinite is a misconception. What has and is simply happening is the use and development of resources that are already existing, and the continuous expansion and expectation for those resources. However I do understand why you'd see such growth as infinite, as the very essence of this economic principle is constantly stressing what is tolerable to the buyer and what is possible with current input, both of which are more robust than anyone could ever realize. What has happened in recent times is the increasing predictability industrialism has provided for, which has led to massive expansion and creation of new and old economic sectors, of which there will always be unrealized gains for, because resources are scarce, and even if we reach for the stars and further expand tenfold, there will still be scarcity.
Again I will stress, I have faith that humanity will find a way to meet its energy demands, there are other, much more scarcer things than C2H1 (I know the chemical structure is not that simple, but I think you'll understand) that humanity has allocated very well. With that being said humanity also does a great deal at thwarting its own alternatives, whether its petrol or lithium.
>energy absorption increases by the logarithm of CO2 concentration and not linearly, and there aren't that many fossil fuels remaining in general
CO2 emissions increased exponentially, so what is your point?
>There are zero situations where CO2 leads to major global warming
Already has. Pic related.
Lel, I was curious so I looked into it and this paper puts an average global irradiance in January of 2850 W/m^2, while in the peak of the summer summer it's 7770 W/m^2.
https://www.researchgate net/figure/Monthly-average-values-of-global-irradiance-on-a-horizontal-surface-10_tbl1_329710295
Wiki puts average global radiative forcing at ~300, so we're talking about a 1% increase in global radiative forcing, equivalent to a change of <0.1% in average global irradiance.
https://en.wikipedia org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
You just pulled a graphic and said "OOH! SCARY" With zero context.
"Oh no! The number of Russian invasions of Ukraine increased by an infinite percentage this year! Surely this harbors violent and dangerous times for us all!
I asked you a simple elaborating question to get to the root of the data you presented, which could have changed my mind on the issue, but instead of explaining the data you resort to passive aggressive comments. Are you a woman by any chance?
>Lel, I was curious so I looked into it and this paper puts an average global irradiance in January of 2850 W/m^2, while in the peak of the summer summer it's 7770 W/m^2.
OK, and what does that have to do with radiative forcing? Solar radiative forcing is -0.02 W/m^2.
>Wiki puts average global radiative forcing at ~300
Where?
>so we're talking about a 1% increase in global radiative forcing
No, you're terribly confused. CO2 has increased the amount of radiative forcing by 385%
>You just pulled a graphic and said "OOH! SCARY" With zero context.
The context is your claim that CO2 cannot cause major global warming. The graph shows it already has. Your inability to understand this is caused by your complete ignorance of what you're trying to argue about, not lack of context.
>I asked you a simple elaborating question
Not really. You asked me why you should care about something. Why would I care what you care about? You don't even know what you're talking about and probably don't want to know. If you want me to elaborate on anything i actually said, then ask.
>Much climate change
Lul
No, the World Economic Forum is killing agriculture, not the weather, you fricking moron.
Reasonable anon, the paradox does indeed come from the permise that green energy is 'le good' while other sources bad. Mining of rare metals contradicts this, and at the very least deserves a sound explanation. So does the lifetime of a solar panel, and the efficiency per $ it's allowed in said life.
There are like 3 people in the entire Salar de Uyuni and that's not even the main way we get lithium, most of it comes from spodumene mines that don't even take up that much space. The impact of mining lithium and other renewable energy materials is way lower than oil and gas drilling, let alone coal mining. Then you factor in the air quality reduction from burning it and it's not even close.
Really? How could "loads of people" live on barren salt flats? Mutants evolved to eat lithium salts?
The crazy is strong with this one.
>Also them windmills.. They require no oil, eh?
Ok you got us. They are actually driven by Diesel engines.
>They require no oil, eh?
comparatively? "No"
>"I'll just openly insert a word into this sentence so I can give an answer that looks more Green!"
I hope she sees this, bro.
>How is lithium/cobalt mining considered "eco friendly"?
Shut up peasant and mine those rare earth elements for my Prius battery!
Still better than gas cars
Redditorgays BTFO
You care about being eco friendly?
Ok lets stop all agriculture, mining and industry, also lets cut the population by 80%
sound good?
Yeah
sounds good
Sweet, where can I put in my vote?
>80%
I read about greengays saying that earth can only sustain 600,000 modern industrialized humans.
How is not kys environment friendly?
The atacama flats are literally the most barren place on the planet.
Regardless, the objective of fossil fuel divestment is to limit GHG caused climate change, not to save the whales or whatever.
>The atacama flats are literally the most barren place on the planet.
Yes, which makes it even more insane to hear how much water is diverted their on order to soak in salt
who said it was?
No mining is considered "eco friendly" by anyone except the mining companies and their shills.
Right now CO2 is the most immediate threat to the environment globally and so any limited local damage is considered better than continued global damage.
If you have a solution to the global issues that doesn't create local issues post it.
This. Are people really not able to reason this far by themselves or do they just want to score points on the internet?
Here is the only way to solve the climate crisis:
1. Nuclear energy as the primary energy source everywhere. The development of new technologies as well as economies of scale will drive the cost of nuclear down to the point that it won't even make sense use other technologies. Unless you are in an area where earthquakes or fricking volcanoes are a serious threat, nuclear is the only technology that is going to make sense.
2. Solar panels only on top of buildings, it doesn't make fricking sense to waste millions of acres of land on solar farms which could just be replaced by nuclear that takes up 1/100 of the area. Solar farms in places besides deserts are just using up land that could be occupied by plants to remove C02 from the atmosphere. Deserts are the only place where solar farms would make any sense.
3. Wind in places that are actually extremely windy, still have the majority of power generated from nuclear, but this is also viable. Figure out how to fricking design the blades to be recycleable.
4. If safer nuclear technologies, like thorium reactors, are somehow infeasible, then stable rich countries can just sell energy to poorer neighbors thanks to advances in high voltage DC transmission (see the Australia Singapore electrical line being built). There could be some agreed upon "subsidy" so that this electricity is sold for cheap to poorer countries, this way liberals can pat themselves on the back for the reversing the "wrong doings their ancestors did".
Benefits: no emissions, high density energy production, no need for any stupid fricking batteries, don't need to replace solar and wind farms every 15 years as nuclear plants can be refurbished to last 40-80 years, poorer countries get their development subsidized due to low energy costs, rich countries actually benefit as they get massive energy and research industries which keep jobs in the country, places that are water scarce can use the high density nuclear energy to desalinate sea water.
Solar and wind are so much cheaper utility-scale that it would be senseless to not use them. Land plants are pretty shitty at pulling CO2 from the atmosphere and you're typically replacing desert/grassland anyway so as long as you're not flattening whole ecosystems does it really matter?
They are cheaper because a reactor hasn't been designed or built since the 70s. I guarantee you if they were being built at the same rate as solar and wind farms are, and the Yucca mountain complex was operational, it would be cheaper per kw/h and you wouldn't need everyone getting batteries. Plants may be shitty at pulling CO2 but they are better than nothing. Currently the majority of the world's produced solar panels only break even carbon wise if they are installed in deserts or in mountainous regions like Colorado. It doesn't make sense to use solar farms to power anything north of Missouri.
>I guarantee you [...] it would be cheaper per kw/h
"Trust me bro" or are there publications on this topic? Using old power plants should reduce the cost because you don't have to build new ones.
>It doesn't make sense to use solar farms to power anything north of Missouri.
Why not? They last longer and output the same energy over their lifespan.
There are thorium reactor designs that are ridiculously efficient and impossible to melt down from decades ago, they were ignored in favour of enriched uranium because a thorium reactor can't make nuclear weapons. Furthermore the oil industry campaigned against nuclear vehemently, when in actual fact radon releases from coal mining do more damage than any nuclear disaster ever has (disasters caused by greed, idiocy or corruption mostly)
For example, Chernobyl wouldn't have melted down when the control rods were reinserted after the emergency shutoff was released if they weren't tipped with graphite. Likewise, Fukushima was meant to be flooded with seawater to prevent a meltdown. Instead it wasn't because that would ruin the reactor and those in charge wanted to try to save it. Nuclear disasters are caused exclusively by incompetence and greed, which can both be eliminated, and safety features can make it so that even in the event of incompetence or greed, a plug will melt and drain the fuel into a special tank to guarantee no meltdowns.
Frankly I don't care about the environmental impact of oil, I think global warming is an unscientific hoax based on a terrible lack of data, I just know that nuclear could be cheaper, safer, last longer and would open up new possibilities like desalination or hydrogen production or whatever other stupid shit you can think of
Thorium is a meme
>I think global warming is an unscientific hoax based on a terrible lack of data,
Yet we have data of several areas with severe spikes in temperatures. Southern Africa is beating all it's historical heat records one after the other.
Not just SA, virtual everywhere. The hottest ten years in the UK since 1884 were all after 2002. People who don't believe in climate change are mostly people pretending to do so for profits.
>incompetence and greed
>can be eliminated
yeah, that was funny as frick. based nuclear naifs.
You'd be horrified to know that the generations of moronic "college grads" these days are pretty incapable. Finland recently had all sorts of issues trying to build a new nuclear plant simply due to the fact that the most experienced workers on the subject were 60+ years old
>that the most experienced workers on the subject were 60+ years old
You reap what you sow
Show me any scientific field or workplace where that isn't the case.
1. Not every area can or should use nuclear and it's not wise to force it on them like a Technocrap. You can't ignore the fact you still NEED oil and gas for manufacturing, transportation and other things. Also energy markets widely vary, some natural gas is cheap, others they have hydro and solar, others use nuclear because they have no alternative.
2. There's vela ways to align panels anon. Some crops or things actually grow better under shade from a tree or other things so a farm in a hot climate with solar panels as shade to help certain crops grow would help.
>4. If safer nuclear technologies, like thorium reactors, are somehow infeasible, then stable rich countries can just sell energy to poorer neighbors thanks to advances in high voltage DC transmission (see the Australia Singapore electrical line being built).
and energy prices can fluctuate as seen with the EU
>There could be some agreed upon "subsidy" so that this electricity is sold for cheap to poorer countries, this way liberals can pat themselves on the back for the reversing the "wrong doings their ancestors did".
and transporting that energy tends to face loss the farther out they go. Real talk it's better having them get energy from a nearby neighbour or themselves then get it from a developed nation who can use it to control you if you do something you don't like because we all know the west loves doing that with aid as is.
Mining isn't eco friendly but it's required no matter what. If you're trying to ask about batteries then yes, it's completely unsustainable. A molten metal battery or some other system focused on providing cheap energy storage at a grid level will be required.
A place like America can use solar panels to great effect. They have plenty of land that is sparsely populated and that gets high solar irradiance. Combined with the above (better battery systems) it's the best mid-term solution. Unfortunately nuclear, while much better, has been stalled and held up too long. Were it allowed to advance and be built like normal throughout its lifetime then it would be the dominant source of power. But we don't live in that world. At this point it would be better to focus on the aforementioned for now until fusion power plants start coming online. Like you said, paving over endless swathes of land with solar panels is not a good idea. Solar power is a very low density power source and so will only work to sustain out needs in the interim. Ultimately we must pursue fusion power in order to make the price of electricity itself negligible and to have electricity available wherever necessary and in a dense form.
Total nuclear retaliation in the event of a direct strike on a nuclear reactor.
We need like 100x more nuclear and 100x more solar.
Put solar panels in every fricking parking lot for fricks sake.
In places they use solar panels above the road to provide shade, that also saves on air conditioning use in cars.
I cannot see how you can use people as fuel.
>people as fuel
you feed the simple carbohydrates and force them to move stuff with a whip
sure they won't be as efficient as fossil fuels
but fundamentally they will accomplish the same thing
Mining is usually not really destructive, and the area regrows quickly once the mine is abandoned, and often with otherwise rare species to boot. Reclamation projects are a scam to pry money out of governments.
>Reclamation
Sry, whatever it's actually called in English.
How is uranium mining considered "eco friendly"?
it doesn't produce CO2 when used to generate power, you know that
Oh? Does lithium produce CO2?
you know the answer to that as well
There's nothing wrong with uranium, you can eat it and be fine. See: Galen Winsor.
morons should read this
https://www.dw.com/en/toxic-and-radioactive-the-damage-from-mining-rare-elements/a-57148185
I've never heard anybody call lithium or cobalt mining eco friendly
In general you can do whatever you want in deserts. The only good environments are savanah, forests, jungles and wetlands. Theres barely nothing alive in a desert.
How do you stop nuclear reactors from turning into giant dirty bombs during war time?
Get immune to radiation, evolutionlet
Rely on passive security. Look up the Molten Salt Reactor.
Because it happens in another country.
>muh global warming
Why February in particular, I wonder?
Nice did you just flip it horizontally?
I love how the climate cultists literally cannot fathom a scenario I. Which the weather isn't getting ultra scary. The Earth and weather is fine, you little homosexuals are getting duped.
>Inb4 some redditor spends 2 seconds googling an IPCC study and acts like they're informed
Look how pretty it is! All those shades of turquoise and light blue, anything that beautiful can't be harmful!
It looks just like my video game!
It's not, why do you think it is?
No human activity is eco friendly, ecological-minded people want to reduce ecological damage to some level that nature can deal with, wild animals and plants can deal with modest amounts of pollution and some reduction in their habitats, beyond a threshold they die
>noooooo you can't just mine materials from the earth. You have to keep everything untouched and hire unqualified brown people!!!!
we will not conquer the stars until every man has the opportunity to construct a nuclear powered homestead
>oh no, there are couple of salty pond in a empty desert, the world is ruined
gasoline fumes are literally rotting your brain
Yeah, it's ironic but one of the major opponents to renewables now are environmental groups. There was this big Nevada solar farm that got blocked by an ATV rental, some commies (IIRC Extinction Revolution), and the Sierra Club
If only you really knew how universally backwards most policies are
I know this will be hard to read, especially for our american friends -
how about just using less things?
well OP, its not that great and has to be seen as a stopgap, but lithium can be recycled once its been used. we have to start doing less harm immediately until we find something the economytards and conspiract tards will go along with. oh well. PS using the internet isnt great either...
yours in Christ, anon.
well the rise wont be evenly distributed around the world due to sea thingies. but i think its predicted to be underwater in 100 years anyway
but im curious why he wants a huge propane back up at the house. he is good at looking ahead maybe we should be doing the same
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/17/president-obama-installing-2500-gallons-of-fossil-fuel-backup-at-marthas-vineyard/
the stress on infrastructure and arable land watertables could be too much for coastal communities.
i think obama bought somewhere to live rather than as an investment.
scientists should own up to mistakes or unreallised predictions. but i doubt very much that the big picture is wrong at all
I can't tell you at what time I will take my next shit, but I can tell you that I shit on average ~300 times per year. If that increases to 400 times, that's a significant rise and I don't need to tell you the hour of my next shit
Correct. Weather is determined by chaotic fluid dynamics of the atmosphere. Climate is determined by how much energy is in the atmosphere, not how it moves around. They aren't comparable.
From what I've seen this has always been a tension for environmentalists promoting these technologies
You're delusional if you don't think it's mentioned all the time
Because africans are the most disposable and renewable resource on the planet
How humanity is capable of taking shit from underground and altering entire landscapes worldwide because me want magic rock that helps me go from A to B unironically makes me hard.