Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Politics political discourse

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-05-2018, 03:36 AM   #1251
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,418
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabbaker View Post
Watched Chasing Ice and Chasing Coral on Netflix. I'm likely being a bit pessimistic but it seems like there is no hope for saving our planet.
Cows, pigs, chickens, dogs, cats, miniature horses and the richest 60% of humans will probably cope. The real truth about the "deniers" is probably more that they don't care than that they don't believe.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 06:47 AM   #1252
Csaba
veteran
 
Csaba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,993
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabbaker View Post
Watched Chasing Ice and Chasing Coral on Netflix. I'm likely being a bit pessimistic but it seems like there is no hope for saving our planet.
I came to this conclusion a long time ago. Feels like the only solution is us going extinct.
Csaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 06:54 AM   #1253
whosnext
Pooh-Bah
 
whosnext's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: California
Posts: 4,874
Re: The Environment

I for one can't wait till we're gone.
whosnext is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 01:15 PM   #1254
Loki
binary duo
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: between the sheets
Posts: 12,795
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabbaker View Post
Watched Chasing Ice and Chasing Coral on Netflix. I'm likely being a bit pessimistic but it seems like there is no hope for saving our planet.
The planet has and will be around a lot longer than humanity.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 01:24 PM   #1255
stinkubus
Pooh-Bah
 
stinkubus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,136
Re: The Environment

stinkubus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 03:37 AM   #1256
Oladipo
centurion
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 182
Re: The Environment

Something I can’t stop thinking about is that we only had 1 billion people on the planet in 1804. I can’t help but think that no matter what we do, we will just eventually run out of resources. I try to do everything I can in my restaurant and will never give up hope, but it just seems so grim.
Oladipo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2018, 11:46 AM   #1257
Shifty86
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,224
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oladipo View Post
Something I canít stop thinking about is that we only had 1 billion people on the planet in 1804. I canít help but think that no matter what we do, we will just eventually run out of resources. I try to do everything I can in my restaurant and will never give up hope, but it just seems so grim.

Stop listening to propaganda. Resources have never been more plentiful and there has never been a safer, better time to be alive.
Shifty86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2018, 11:44 AM   #1258
domer2
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
domer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,747
Re: The Environment

Nic Lewis and Judith Curry again publish a paper on climate sensitivity, and again find much lower values for them than the guesses made by climate models:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10....LI-D-17-0667.1

If correct, would imply that the Earth is going to warm at about half the rate that was assumed.
domer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2018, 04:20 PM   #1259
Namath12
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Namath12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Eric Holder's Justice Department
Posts: 52,950
Re: The Environment

Pretty interesting article on the legal ramifications of waterfront properties being submerged:

The Fighting Has Begun Over Who Owns Land Drowned by Climate Change
Namath12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2018, 02:34 AM   #1260
Dynasty
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dynasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,294
Re: The Environment

Some smart Harvard guys think they've figure out out to economically pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

Can anybody interpret this? What is its realistic potential?

A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere


Quote:
We describe a process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere in an industrial plant. The design captures ∼1 Mt-CO2/year in a continuous process using an aqueous KOH sorbent coupled to a calcium caustic recovery loop. We describe the design rationale, summarize performance of the major unit operations, and provide a capital cost breakdown developed with an independent consulting engineering firm. We report results from a pilot plant that provides data on performance of the major unit operations. We summarize the energy and material balance computed using an Aspen process simulation. When CO2 is delivered at 15 MPa, the design requires either 8.81 GJ of natural gas, or 5.25 GJ of gas and 366 kWhr of electricity, per ton of CO2 captured. Depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs, the levelized cost per ton CO2 captured from the atmosphere ranges from 94 to 232 $/t-CO2.
Dynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2018, 12:51 PM   #1261
domer2
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
domer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,747
Re: The Environment

Well the articles about it seem to think it is legit. It's not theoretical; it's already been tested. I suppose getting the cost down would be the theoretical bit.

There's another group in Iceland that also is doing carbon capture a different way, making solid carbon and then burying it...they also think they can hit $100 a ton in a few years.

Both groups are supported by the Gates Foundation iirc.

So I'd say carbon capture is very realistic, it's the getting-down-the-cost that is the question mark. And then the obvious question of who would pay if this is to be done en masse (and to what extent this should be done). Then there is the question of whether we should take ourselves back to a pre-industrial level of 270ppm, because it is plausible that a lot of plants could die off.
domer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 11:06 AM   #1262
grizy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
grizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Looking for Rush HU Poker
Posts: 16,924
Re: The Environment

Cost and and scaling are huge issues. A simple calculation is just to multiply cost/ton by 10 billion and you get an idea of the cost of that technology to capture most of CO2 annual emission.

Its however basically a certainty nothing we got now can scale that much without dramatically increasing costs. Another issue is a lot of the green gas emission isn't even CO2.

Still, being able to capture even 10-20% of annual emissions can buy us a lot of time and I think we will see some combination of technologies to pull that off within 2 or 3 decades.

Until then, nuclear is still the most viable source of energy that can dramatically cut emissions. That and a massive build out of EV infrastructure so new sources of energy can be plug and play.
grizy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 11:18 AM   #1263
Clovis8
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Having a beer with Charles Darwin
Posts: 15,044
Re: The Environment

Theoretically when you scale up a technology costs go down, not up.
Clovis8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2018, 09:49 AM   #1264
Namath12
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Namath12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Eric Holder's Justice Department
Posts: 52,950
Re: The Environment

****ing slob mountain climbers (aka Garbage Patches Aren't Just in the Ocean)

Namath12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 01:43 AM   #1265
jalfrezi
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
jalfrezi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Long gone, long long gone
Posts: 7,795
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext View Post
I for one can't wait till we're gone.
If only that was the case. A planet environmentally devastated by climate change will be ruled by a relatively small number of people who benefited most from causing it.

Humans suck.
jalfrezi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 06:01 AM   #1266
Csaba
veteran
 
Csaba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,993
Re: The Environment

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...621-story.html

Quote:
Trump administration tightens rules for federal scientists talking to reporters

Kate Kelly, a former director of communications at the Department of the Interior during the Obama administration, said it’s a problem when political appointees are put in a position where they can require scientists to obtain approval before speaking to journalists.

“This policy, if it’s in fact being implemented as such, has a lot of concerning implications. It essentially gives political appointees veto power over science, scientists and information that the American people should have access to,” Kelly said. “That introduces questions about what scientists are able to say, and whether what they’re sharing is some mangled version of the truth.”

Some also expressed concern about how the work of federal scientists is being affected in the Trump administration. The Center for Investigative Reporting wrote about the deletion of every mention of humans causing climate change in a draft report for the National Park Service; the references were later restored. The Washington Post reported on the deletion from a USGS news release about the role climate change played in rising sea levels and reductions in the number of scientists allowed to attend key conferences where they can share their work and learn new things.
Csaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 07:32 AM   #1267
Clovis8
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Having a beer with Charles Darwin
Posts: 15,044
Re: The Environment

Canada's last conservative government had a similar policy. Several of my friends were subject to it and many don't realize the sweeping implications. It makes it very difficult to go about the daily work of science, like publishing and presenting at conferences. It stalls research at a time climate science needs to be ramped up. People were literally creating back channels to share results.

A good friend is a highly respected soil scientist in the US. She focuses on climate change and for the past two years has been frantically trying to hide her climate research inside grant applications for other things because she knows climate science is going to be hammered in terms of funding. Her work will literally save lives and she has to act like she is doing something wrong!

On the plus side, the only reason these policies exist is because these awful people know their only hope is to hide the truth.
Clovis8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 07:49 AM   #1268
Clovis8
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Having a beer with Charles Darwin
Posts: 15,044
Re: The Environment

The derailment this weekend in Iowa is a good time to remind my friends itt who are opposed to pipelines that they are making a serious error if their true goal is public and environmental safety.

Pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas. Spills are less common and tend to be less severe in terms of public safety. Additionally, new technologies are making it much easier to prevent ruptures and catch them very early.

As my posting history shows I am all for pouring huge amounts of public funds into subsidizing and research for green technologies. However, even the most optimistic estimates put a non-fossil fuel economy decades in the future.

Till then pipelines should be supported, not protested. These protests will go down in the history books as a huge mistep in the environmental movement. It's a sad example of the pro-science side abandoning science because it's politically convient to do so.
Clovis8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 10:41 AM   #1269
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,418
Re: The Environment

Clovis,

I was thinking of you when I heard the news. I weigh your point, but imo you are participating in bad faith if you don't weigh that agaist the obviously at least highly reasonable point that pipelines make for more efficiency, lower prices, more extraction, and more oil burned. There's a race going on to replace fossil fuels. At some point we'll be leaving them underground. Pipelines make it so less will be left there and more will be in the atmosphere. In other circumstances you act like you took econ 101.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 01:50 PM   #1270
Clovis8
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Having a beer with Charles Darwin
Posts: 15,044
Re: The Environment

As I've said before, that is reasonable position, although I think misguided for reasons too complex to get into here. Nonetheless, it's not the one argued by the vast majority of pipeline opponents. I would guess if you polled 1000 opponents less than 10 would assert this as the reason for the opposition.
Clovis8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 02:03 PM   #1271
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,418
Re: The Environment

Ok.

Anyway, at the rate at which prices for renewables are dropping (2.3 cents per kwh from a recent solar project in Nevada - prices now around 3.5 cents including storage) I'm not really that concerned. It will be a while before all oil can be eliminated, especially for fertilizer, and it's not clear that it wouldn't be worth it to have safer pipelines for that.

I think a political, rather than scientific, difference is at play here too. Sure carbon tax plus regulations on extraction is a better way to go about slowing the extraction than using trains and trucks instead of pipelines, but I don't trust anyone near power in the US to do that. Maybe in Canada or Norway they can pull off leaving in the ground what can easily be extracted, but in the US even people like Obama can be heard talking about things like "clean coal".
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 05:40 PM   #1272
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,418
Re: The Environment

Years ahead of schedule the greenhouse gas emissions of California are at 1990 levels. And doing it did not wreck our economy.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2018, 09:30 PM   #1273
Clovis8
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Having a beer with Charles Darwin
Posts: 15,044
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
Years ahead of schedule the greenhouse gas emissions of California are at 1990 levels. And doing it did not wreck our economy.
This needs to be a way bigger story. Itís a crime against humanity this doesnít lead every news cast.
Clovis8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 01:47 AM   #1274
Dynasty
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dynasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,294
Re: The Environment

Aren't the total U.S. emissions at about 1993-94 levels?
Dynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 09:33 AM   #1275
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,418
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty View Post
Aren't the total U.S. emissions at about 1993-94 levels?
Apparently so. Emmissions went down in 2016 nationally supposedly because of less coal being burned for electricity and a warm winter.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online