IFish Fishing Forum banner
501 - 520 of 576 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
Q: How many acres of South American rain forest is burned off each year?
Because those people want a better life.............are they boomers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
This is a good, in-depth comparison. The Rivian sounds VERY impressive. Hope they survive, lol... they just laid off 6% of their workforce.

There’s a quote in there somewhere to the effect that it’s a shame EV’s have become politicized (to which I say, what hasn’t?!) because people will really like the driving experience of either of these rigs, particularly the Rivian.

I won’t be offing my gasser anytime soon but it’s fun to read about.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,222 Posts
I think EV cars are fine. I own two plug in hybrids. But, until better technology, trucks are not there, except for the around town, mostly people movers. Local landscapers and remodel guys, fine with Rivian, LightNing, but for towing big boats and campers. Nope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
Correct. Want to see how long? Go here:


Play with emissions, click run projections, and see how long it takes for CO2 to peak.
If we flatline at 2020 emissions into the future, the atmospheric CO2 peak occurs in 2075.
If we manage to stabilize at 2000 emissions in the future, CO2 peaks in 2040

I’m slightly optimistic because I expect continued near-term climate-related events like heat waves and droughts and fires and floods will increasingly spur government action to maintain habitability/stability in essential non-fossil fuel sectors (stuff like food, water, forests), and because young people always care more and dig tech to foster transitions (i.e., renewables are coming online faster than many projections).
I’m confused... if we flatline at 2020 emissions, why does it peak in 2075? What would then cause atmospheric level to go DOWN (IE, post-peak) if we are still pumping 2020 levels of CO2 into the atmosphere?

My pessimism is rooted in looking at the various graphs and just extrapolating from there. I don’t know exactly what the lag time between emissions > effects is (edit: a bit of reading indicates it’s 10-20 years), but I know there is one, so the effects we are seeing now are from the cumulation of CO2 from a time when we were outputting less of the stuff. In other words, my understanding is, we could cease emissions this moment, obviously impossible but interesting as a null-case thought experiment, but STILL have hell to pay in the next decade or two as the effects from recent emissions kick in.

Let me see if I can explain “area under a curve” for those not exposed to the concept. Area under a curve is the basis of integral calculus, but for our purposes, it’s also just a simple eyeball approximation that’s nonetheless very powerful.

Say you’ve graphed something, like this at the bottom of the post. I just chose this graph because it’s clean-looking.

It turns out that the area under a graphed curve is by definition spatially coherent relative to itself. Meaning, if you could choose a portion of that graphed area and quantify it’s area in say square inches, all the other areas share that same “scale”.


The point being, you can use your bare eyeballs to get a good idea of a relative quantity of “whatever“ has been graphed compared to other portions of the same graph. So if you look at the yellow part of that graph, how many times would it fit into the brown area? If you printed it out and cut the yellow part up with scissors, how much of the brown part would be filled by the pieces? To my eye, there a little over 2x as much brown as yellow.

Why this MATTERS, is that if we were to say flatline at 2020 output levels, and hold that going forward,we are generating a massive area of new “brown” (due to the relative height of our graph) under the curve every year. And when you look at earlier decades on the same graph- the “yellow” decades we are now feeling the effects of- you get a sense of how if THAT much carbon is causing the problems we are seeing, then we are screwed if we keep cranking along. Because those earlier decades fit into the newer part of the curve with lots of room to spare.

The other poopy thing to realize is that if we did succeed in plateauing at 2020 levels and holding there a while before say gradually decreasing, we are STILL generating a massive, massive area under the curve. Keeping in mind that a much SMALLER area under the curve is what is screwing us. To cap at 2020 levels is not success; it’s disastrous

I don’t like my description. I’ll try to find a better one.

Water Azure Map Slope Font
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
The push to green energy is just the camel putting it's nose under the tent, once fully implemented the next push will be to "eliminate your need" for things such as the trendy ev, it is a slippery slope.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
The push to green energy is just the camel putting it's nose under the tent, once fully implemented the next push will be to "eliminate your need" for things such as the trendy ev, it is a slippery slope.

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
Car Land vehicle Vehicle Tire Motor vehicle


Glasses Smile Vehicle Hat Car
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
The push to green energy is just the camel putting it's nose under the tent, once fully implemented the next push will be to "eliminate your need" for things such as the trendy ev, it is a slippery slope.

You're getting one conspiracy ahead. :) How about we first get green energy fully implemented, THEN you roll that one out.

Here’s the deal, as clearly as I can say it. Am I pessimistic that human-caused warming is going to cause massive, very bad, problems for humanity pretty much regardless of whatever incremental changes we make now? Yes, I am. I think we’re gonna get our asses handed to us by this, and it won’t be pretty. But conversely, when I look into the crystal ball, in 100 years is most energy going to be “green“ (or at least non-carbon) and are most vehicles going to be electric? I believe answer is “yes”. There’s really no other option here. So SOMEBODY is going to do this.

So it’s really simple. We gotta get there somehow, someday. Why not start the ball rolling? Why should WE, of all people, be exempt from the consequences of what WE have wrought?

The only reason would be, in a word, selfishness. It’s frustrating to me that much of the resistance to getting the ball rolling on this comes from the oldest people in our society- who preached responsibility, consequences for actions, not screwing the future with debt/deficit, and so on for my whole life. Old farts: this is your time to show us you meant it! 😎

Look....... I’m kidding... I know that’s not going to happen. Old folks are the least adaptable slice of our demographic. Their die is cast. Fair enough. But they/you/we (I’m not young) need to at least stop PREVENTING it from happening.

If not us, who? If not now, when? I think if a person typed out their honest answers to those questions, they’d be ashamed to post them, because it would demonstrate such blatant abrogation of responsibility.

In related news, a massive climate bill might suddenly have a chance in Congress......... who knew.... so here we go. The moment of truth. Are you fer us, or agin’ us?
 
  • Like
Reactions: piscean

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
You're getting one conspiracy ahead. :) How about we first get green energy fully implemented, THEN you roll that one out.

Here’s the deal, as clearly as I can say it. Am I pessimistic that human-caused warming is going to cause massive, very bad, problems for humanity pretty much regardless of whatever incremental changes we make now? Yes, I am. I think we’re gonna get our asses handed to us by this, and it won’t be pretty. But conversely, when I look into the crystal ball, in 100 years is most energy going to be “green“ (or at least non-carbon) and are most vehicles going to be electric? I believe answer is “yes”. There’s really no other option here. So SOMEBODY is going to do this.

So it’s really simple. We gotta get there somehow, someday. Why not start the ball rolling? Why should WE, of all people, be exempt from the consequences of what WE have wrought?

The only reason would be, in a word, selfishness. It’s frustrating to me that much of the resistance to getting the ball rolling on this comes from the oldest people in our society- who preached responsibility, consequences for actions, not screwing the future with debt/deficit, and so on for my whole life. Old farts: this is your time to show us you meant it! 😎

Look....... I’m kidding... I know that’s not going to happen. Old folks are the least adaptable part of our demographic. Their die is cast. Fair enough. But they/you/we (I’m not young) need to at least stop PREVENTING it from happening.

If not us, who? If not now, when? I think if a person typed out their honest answers to those questions, they’d be ashamed to post them, because it would demonstrate such blatant abrogation of responsibility.

In related news, a massive climate bill might suddenly have a chance in Congress......... who knew.... so here we go. The moment of truth. Are you fer us, or agin’ us?
I don't understand the angst, the manufacturers are selling all the EV's they can make, the transition is happening, it is not like the car lots are full. Why would many of us throw away perfectly good vehicles that are new? What are you going to do with the last people to buy ICE vehicles, subsidize them to turn in their cars for an EV? We will get there, especially once they produce vehicles that actually meet the need or is it the game to change your needs?

Frankly Prinetucky nailed it, the shaming going on over EV's will soon turn to planes, boats and then your need to even recreate outside of your immediate area. 2 carbon tons per capita is not pretty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
“I’m slightly optimistic because I expect continued near-term climate-related events like heat waves and droughts and fires and floods will increasingly spur government action to maintain habitability/stability in essential non-fossil fuel sectors (stuff like food, water, forests), and because young people always care more and dig tech to foster transitions (i.e., renewables are coming online faster than many projections).”

The 3 generations behind the boomers are the fattest generations in the history of the world. They cannot put thier phones down for 5 minutes but you say they will some how be disciplined enough to make the biggest shift since the industrial revolution? Pull the other leg it has bells on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
The 3 generations behind the boomers are the fattest generations in the history of the world. They cannot put thier phones down for 5 minutes but you say they will some how be disciplined enough to make the biggest shift since the industrial revolution? Pull the other leg it has bells on it.
By your logic, the fat kids with phones are 1 step away from living in virtual reality, with no need for airplanes, pickups, boats, etc. etc. Just some starchy food, a couch, a windmill powered VR, and they’re set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
I would also take things more seriously if the government attempted to revive the rail roads for both travel and freight. Mandating all govt. employees only travel by rail not planes. They won’t touch over the road trucking because of the teamsters. How efficient is Amazon driving a big van to deliver a 1 oz. Package vs the post office that is already going that way. Maybe we should move mail delivery to once a week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
I’m confused... if we flatline at 2020 emissions, why does it peak in 2075? What would then cause atmospheric level to go DOWN (IE, post-peak) if we are still pumping 2020 levels of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Not all emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Some is taken up by Earth’s ecosystems.

The link to the simple carbon model that I provided combines the rate of CO2 emission with C uptake and cycling through land and ocean ecosystems, resulting in a time-resolved net change in atmospheric CO2, and resulting changes in temperature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,369 Posts
I’m confused... if we flatline at 2020 emissions, why does it peak in 2075? What would then cause atmospheric level to go DOWN (IE, post-peak) if we are still pumping 2020 levels of CO2 into the atmosphere?

My pessimism is rooted in looking at the various graphs and just extrapolating from there. I don’t know exactly what the lag time between emissions > effects is (edit: a bit of reading indicates it’s 10-20 years), but I know there is one, so the effects we are seeing now are from the cumulation of CO2 from a time when we were outputting less of the stuff. In other words, my understanding is, we could cease emissions this moment, obviously impossible but interesting as a null-case thought experiment, but STILL have hell to pay in the next decade or two as the effects from recent emissions kick in.

Let me see if I can explain “area under a curve” for those not exposed to the concept. Area under a curve is the basis of integral calculus, but for our purposes, it’s also just a simple eyeball approximation that’s nonetheless very powerful.

Say you’ve graphed something, like this at the bottom of the post. I just chose this graph because it’s clean-looking.

It turns out that the area under a graphed curve is by definition spatially coherent relative to itself. Meaning, if you could choose a portion of that graphed area and quantify it’s area in say square inches, all the other areas share that same “scale”.


The point being, you can use your bare eyeballs to get a good idea of a relative quantity of “whatever“ has been graphed compared to other portions of the same graph. So if you look at the yellow part of that graph, how many times would it fit into the brown area? If you printed it out and cut the yellow part up with scissors, how much of the brown part would be filled by the pieces? To my eye, there a little over 2x as much brown as yellow.

Why this MATTERS, is that if we were to say flatline at 2020 output levels, and hold that going forward,we are generating a massive area of new “brown” (due to the relative height of our graph) under the curve every year. And when you look at earlier decades on the same graph- the “yellow” decades we are now feeling the effects of- you get a sense of how if THAT much carbon is causing the problems we are seeing, then we are screwed if we keep cranking along. Because those earlier decades fit into the newer part of the curve with lots of room to spare.
Area under the curve is too simplistic. It does not account for the fraction of CO2 emissions that is ultimately absorbed by land and sea, and the residence time and fraction of ecosystem C that is naturally recycled back to the atmosphere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
My angst (urgency) is directly correlated to the LACK of angst (urgency) exhibited by our representatives.

We need infrastructure-level investment to support and encourage the move towards EV’s. Our entire power grid needs reworked. How we SUPPLY the power grid needs reworked. It’s going to be expensive. It’s going to take a while- much longer than a political cycle, so there needs to be something approaching a consensus to do this. There’s active resistance to that occurring. The resisters must be rounded up and sent to re-education..... errr.... must be convinced that a) the problem is real and b) the timeline is beyond urgent. But that ain’t easy. :) So we are stalled. Meanwhile, every day that goes by without putting on our big-boy pants and getting this thing started for real, only makes it even harder and even more expensive.

Anyway... you’re correct, 2 tons/American is not realistic and isn’t going to happen. I suspect it’s a red herring, a straw man, someone is using to derail the broader conversation..... but if that’s what someone “green” came up with as a goal, it’s silly, it’s not realistic.

Also to your point (and mine, I argue both sides of this one, lol) all these high-quality ICE rigs aren’t going away anytime soon. Mine aren’t. I’m about to put a timing belt in my ICE truck to get another 150k out of her. 16 mpg and all. Gotta pull my boat with something. :)

So in short term, we are doing what we are doing, and that will continue for a disastrous amount of time I suspect. BUT, if we want to be in a different place in, say, 20 years, we gotta get this rolling NOW!

I don’t think any of this will actually happen mind you, for the reason I already said: the oldest folks in our society hold veto power on this one, and they will continue to use it, for reasons I’ll let them explain for themselves.

It’s unfortunate the US demographic is skewed so old with this crises looming. Old brains do not deal with change well, especially big, paradigm-level change like this is. But they vote! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
Not all emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Some is taken up by Earth’s ecosystems.

The link to the simple carbon model that I provided combines the rate of CO2 emission with C uptake and cycling through land and ocean ecosystems, resulting in a time-resolved net change in atmospheric CO2, and resulting changes in temperature.
I’ll try it again. I was playing with it, then it locked up on my old iPhone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
Anyway... you’re correct, 2 tons/American is not realistic and isn’t going to happen. I suspect it’s a red herring, a straw man, someone is using to derail the broader conversation..... but if that’s what someone “green” came up with as a goal, it’s silly, it’s not realistic.
I would say this group is pretty green...............https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
Iowa generates 58% of their electricity from wind. The highest of any state

Iowa was just 1 of 12 states whose emissions INCREASED from 2000-2020

Iowa now emits 4 million tons of co2 MORE now vs 2000 due to COAL providing the backup for wind
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,265 Posts
Iowa generates 58% of their electricity from wind. The highest of any state

Iowa was just 1 of 12 states whose emissions INCREASED from 2000-2020

Iowa now emits 4 million tons of co2 MORE now vs 2000 due to COAL providing the backup for wind
You have to keep that boiler on line just in case, the wind quits blowing, just like it is doing right now in the gorge during a heat wave.
 
501 - 520 of 576 Posts
Top