|
Post by Pttg on Jun 8, 2017 22:24:25 GMT
Look, we need better treaties, but these things are incremental. Start with a small treaty that demands very little, and work our way towards greater and more effective ones in time.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 10, 2017 20:29:09 GMT
Let me just stick with a couple of things everybody should be able to agree on whatever your stance is: - Whether you believe the climate is changing or not, we need to measure and record it, and develop better modeling of the global climate to increase our understanding of it. - Science should have only one agenda, and that is to find out the objective truth of things, to as great an extent as possible - does our civilization really not have the intellectual integrity to accept the truth as it is, if it turns out to not be what we had hoped? Without measuring and recording, there is nothing to do science on, for either side.
Going on a less objective stance for a moment to hint on my personal opinion, if you look at which side is in favor of conducting less (or no) climate science, you are probably looking at the side which is not supported by the science - if you think the science is wrong, the answer is to do more measuring and recording and science to find if that opinion is supported by fact, testing to see if your hypothesis are supported by your findings, and letting others try and replicate your experiments to see if they can reproduce the results - not clapping your hands over your ears and shouting in disbelief until the problem goes away (or kills you, whichever comes first). We can choose to go into the future with our eyes and ears open. So why go blindly, hoping for the best.
- Whether you believe climate change is caused by humans or not, better modeling and predictions gives us better chance of preparing for the change.
And if you don't believe in climate change... well if the modeling and predictions are completely inaccurate, that just means we're going to have to make better models and predictions as per 1, and until we do, better safe than sorry and make preparations assuming the models aren't wholly incorrect, right? Even if hoping for the best, we should prepare for the worst.
Whether you believe that we as species can do anything about it, we should be switching over to sustainable solutions to as great an extent as possible, because resources are finite, and frankly, most of the old way of doing things (aside from possible climate effects) have measurable secondary effects on health and welfare, or poor safety track records. And again, better safe than sorry. Because either we can do something, and every bit of time wasted deliberating about it is going to be our legacy for future generations, or we can not do anything about it but who does it does it hurt to try? Sure, change is scary, but if we embrace the need and do it before it's absolutely necessary, we can get the best of it.
I mean, come on, people. This is a forum dedicated to a space combat warfare game, we're all futurists to some degree here, aren't we? We all trust in science? We want the world to change for the better (or at the very least, we want to embrace mankinds future in space.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jun 12, 2017 15:24:18 GMT
Fortunately, photovoltaics are closing in on the cheapest per-kwh energy source, so transitioning to it is only a matter of overcoming inertia, not of opposing market forces. This is where a few years ago I would argue that it was a cost we'd have to bear. It turns out that procrastinating enough leads to things getting easier, which is probably the wrong message to send but hey, it is what it is. Even if this is true (plausible, primarily due to the ability of China to make things hilariously cheap) solar power cannot safely be used for base load power generation without dirt cheap energy storage as well, and right now energy storage is very expensive. Net metering is effectively useless, as large-scale powerplants are forced to rapidly cycle up or down depending on (non-hydropower) renewable generation conditions, increasing wear and tear (and maintenance costs) of these facilities, and increases possibility of power grid breakdown. Regarding your other (hilariously assuming, even more insulting) statements; I personally am of the opinion human-derived CO2 is contributing in a non-trivial manner to global warming, and that large-scale geoengineering to mitigate such would be a net public good. However, you are underestimating the difficulties of such. Certainly, we placed the CO2 in the atmosphere; but removing it would require multiple orders of magnitude more effort than putting it there. I don't have time to argue the rest of your points at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Pttg on Jun 12, 2017 20:00:07 GMT
Fortunately, photovoltaics are closing in on the cheapest per-kwh energy source, so transitioning to it is only a matter of overcoming inertia, not of opposing market forces. This is where a few years ago I would argue that it was a cost we'd have to bear. It turns out that procrastinating enough leads to things getting easier, which is probably the wrong message to send but hey, it is what it is. Even if this is true (plausible, primarily due to the ability of China to make things hilariously cheap) solar power cannot safely be used for base load power generation without dirt cheap energy storage as well, and right now energy storage is very expensive. Net metering is effectively useless, as large-scale powerplants are forced to rapidly cycle up or down depending on (non-hydropower) renewable generation conditions, increasing wear and tear (and maintenance costs) of these facilities, and increases possibility of power grid breakdown. Regarding your other (hilariously assuming, even more insulting) statements; I personally am of the opinion human-derived CO2 is contributing in a non-trivial manner to global warming, and that large-scale geoengineering to mitigate such would be a net public good. However, you are underestimating the difficulties of such. Certainly, we placed the CO2 in the atmosphere; but removing it would require multiple orders of magnitude more effort than putting it there. I don't have time to argue the rest of your points at the moment. If you agree with the thesis, don't waste your time and mine with trivialities. I presented the case from the beginning. I don't presume you are a flat earther, I just point out that the only arguments that lead to opposing any-and-all action against climate change are as obviously wrong as flat earth cultishness. Sadly, that position has become a cultural signifier for a large fraction of the populous. If you say that action must be taken, then in many US states, you aren't "one of us," and can be cut out of mainstream society. This is also the origin of the anti-solar movement. From NAoP's response, one would have thought I suggested powering a future society purely with baby-combusting turbines. Photovoltaics and wind will be the primary sources of power wherever they are cheapest, accounting for storage costs such as pumped hydro or compressed air or mechanical systems (hard to pin down, but manageable); that's automatic. Eliminate fossil fuel subsidies (or transfer them to solar/wind/etc., and storage), and for the same government investment (or much less), we'd get explosive development. NAoP forgets that the very rigidity of power plants is a problem in and of itself, because power demand fluctuates as well. Power storage is needed with all power systems, and a system (like solar) that innately produces the most power during the daytime peak in demand is quite convenient. Yeah, geoengineering is difficult. On the scale of human endeavors, however, it's quite achievable. And Easy, I'm glad to see that we have someone on this board who's apparently a better judge of diplomatic agreements than 99% of diplomats and world leaders.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jun 12, 2017 23:42:56 GMT
My issue with you Pttg, is that your tone backhandedly insults anyone who questions the veracity of your positions. Frankly speaking, I could be wrong, and deploying solar shades could damage Earth's ecosphere more than it would help.
|
|
|
Post by Pttg on Jun 13, 2017 0:24:56 GMT
My issue with you Pttg , is that your tone backhandedly insults anyone who questions the veracity of your positions. Frankly speaking, I could be wrong, and deploying solar shades could damage Earth's ecosphere more than it would help. Well, I can understand your perspective. Like I said, this stuff gets co-opted as value signaling, so perhaps a little more sensitivity would be useful on my part when addressing it. On the other hand, we aren't on a college campus and in need of safe spaces and trigger warnings. If we can talk about nuclear bombs and explosive decompression of crew modules, we can talk about global warming, if perhaps a little roughly. For your sake and my own, I will seek to be more respectful.
|
|
|
Post by petrifiedwalnut on Jun 18, 2017 21:12:00 GMT
Edited - I was making an off-topic botanical comment, not a political one. I really wish that climate science were science, not politics.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Jun 18, 2017 21:29:58 GMT
I really wish that climate science were science, not politics. So say we all
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Jun 19, 2017 1:52:30 GMT
Energy storage is getting cheaper too, just not quite as fast as energy generation is. It's also on an exponential curve though, so it'll pick up steam over time. It's just that exponentially improving starting from "really bad" gives you a slow start. From my perspective, climate change *is* something we can tech our way out of (with a geoengineering ace up our sleeve for if we don't tech up fast enough).
Teching our way out of it is also pretty much the only reasonable option. Trying to just cut back consumption/production (which is a polite way of saying "wrecking our own economy") won't work, because without new tech, China and India will single-handedly (duo-handedly?) drive climate change no matter what any country in the West does. And Africa won't be far behind them. They certainly won't want to cut their production, because that would mean going back to being poor for them. Let me tell you, China, India, and Africa are sick and tired of being poor. They'll never actually follow through on a cutting solution, no matter how much lip-service they may give it.
So teching up is the only solution that has any chance at all of working.
However, teching up requires a thriving economy to drive the research. A thriving economy produces a lot of CO2, so somewhat counter-intuitively we need to produce a lot of CO2 now to create the tech we can use to produce less CO2 later, so we can give that tech to China and India (or so China can steal it, whatever) to cut their emissions too. It's quite a needle to thread, but them's the breaks. The good news is, while we're doing that we can also develop atmosphere-scrubbing tech that will let us take back the CO2 we're producing now.
|
|
|
Post by petrifiedwalnut on Jun 19, 2017 20:23:35 GMT
Okay, now my botanical comment became a whole lot more on-topic. Climate change as a natural process exists. We humans are almost certainly making it worse, but climates have changed long before we evolved, and will continue to change long after we have become extinct. If we are to survive the climate change that the Earth is currently experiencing, we must adapt. Reducing the impact that we are having is a good idea as it will make adapting to the future easier for us, but the bottom line is that climate will change whether we are responsible for it or not. Edit: case in point - this plant did not adapt to climate change, and now it's critically endangered.
|
|