Climate Change

[UNLEASH IT]

Hey Phoenix, I've been wondering what you think about biogas as a source of energy. I work in agriculture, so a biogas digestor is always something I wanted to implement on the farm which I work as a way to remove a lot of the waste produced by cows.

[The Geek]

Hey Phoenix, I've been wondering what you think about biogas as a source of energy. I work in agriculture, so a biogas digestor is always something I wanted to implement on the farm which I work as a way to remove a lot of the waste produced by cows.

I know that this isn't directed at me, but I'd still like to comment on it. The main appeal of bio gas is that it's essentially a net zero in terms of adding or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The CO2 released had been in the atmosphere recently, so the released CO2 is part of the normal CO2 cycle and not like the emissions from fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas which have been removed from the Carbon cycle for thousands to millions of years.

It's main issue is that it isn't very efficient, since the Carbon forms are pretty simple and so don't release much energy when broken down. So you probably couldn't run a car or tractor on it. Unless I'm mistaken, which I very well could be.

[Phoenix Wright]

Hey Phoenix, I've been wondering what you think about biogas as a source of energy. I work in agriculture, so a biogas digestor is always something I wanted to implement on the farm which I work as a way to remove a lot of the waste produced by cows.

admittedly i'm not super well-versed on it, but a cursory glance of its perks has made it seem pretty cool! i don't feel like it can be used on large-scales (which is why i support r&d and other efforts towards building gen iii/iv nuclear reactors), but for something like a farm it should work wonders.

I know that this isn't directed at me, but I'd still like to comment on it. The main appeal of bio gas is that it's essentially a net zero in terms of adding or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The CO2 released had been in the atmosphere recently, so the released CO2 is part of the normal CO2 cycle and not like the emissions from fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas which have been removed from the Carbon cycle for thousands to millions of years.

It's main issue is that it isn't very efficient, since the Carbon forms are pretty simple and so don't release much energy when broken down. So you probably couldn't run a car or tractor on it. Unless I'm mistaken, which I very well could be.

wikipedia says it can serve as "17%" of a car's fuel.

[UNLEASH IT]

admittedly i'm not super well-versed on it, but a cursory glance of its perks has made it seem pretty cool! i don't feel like it can be used on large-scales (which is why i support r&d and other efforts towards building gen iii/iv nuclear reactors), but for something like a farm it should work wonders.

wikipedia says it can serve as "17%" of a car's fuel.

Oh I'm definitely for nuclear power. I know it can be dangerous but the benefits are too large to ignore. I'm actually going to quote Donald Trump here, and yes I know, on his stance with regards to nuclear energy:

“If a plane goes down people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash people keep driving."

I wish that someone could've argued for biogas at the debate though. Even if it has a net zero effect on emissions, the faecal matter gets broken down so much within the digester that you can actually take the effluent slurry and apply it directly to crops, saving a lot of money on Nitrogen fertilizer, which in turns helps the environment. Though The Geek said that it has a net zero effect, I would argue that when you take into consideration all the other benefits from reducing fertilizer use and breaking down the nitrous oxide from manure, it actually has a net benefit. Plus, it's extremely renewable, especially in countries with a lot of ruminants or pigs.

"High levels of methane are produced when manure is stored under anaerobic conditions. During storage and when manure has been applied to the land, nitrous oxide is also produced as a byproduct of the denitrification process. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is 320 times more aggressive as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide^[16] and methane 25 times more than carbon dioxide.^[17]

By converting cow manure into methane biogas via anaerobic digestion, the millions of cattle in the United States would be able to produce 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power millions of homes across the United States. In fact, one cow can produce enough manure in one day to generate 3 kilowatt hours of electricity; only 2.4 kilowatt hours of electricity are needed to power a single 100-watt light bulb for one day.^[18] Furthermore, by converting cattle manure into methane biogas instead of letting it decompose, global warming gases could be reduced by 99 million metric tons or 4%"

Plus, it's extremely renewable, especially in countries with a lot of ruminants or pigs. You can even use human waste to generate biogas while also reducing the toxicity of the waste.

Edited November 18, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Excellen Browning]

Why does the space agency do climate research to begin with?

[The Geek]

Why does the space agency do climate research to begin with?

Because NASA make the satellites that are used to conduct the research.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Yes to all of this; particularly the last sentence.

And Permanent Residents aren't going to commit voter fraud, either, since pretending to be a U.S. Citizen in any capacity (even checking the wrong box on your i-9!) can seriously jeopardize your status and can prevent you from ever seeking citizenship.

So Betsy DeVos is a terrible choice for education secretary. And the plans to scrap NASA's climate research are also very concerning.

If Trump and his advisers want to crack down on 'politicized science', then may they should do something about politicians thinking they're in a better position to judge on scientific matters then the actual scientists. And yet here we are, with Trump and co. planning on getting rid of research into important matters that they personally don't believe in, despite all evidence to the contrary. Fucking wonderful.

Edited November 24, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Time the Crestfallen]

Res posted this link in the White House thread, but it's relevant here too:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?CMP=share_btn_fb

[Tolvir]

Because NASA make the satellites that are used to conduct the research.

I actually think Trump is making the right move here. By moving the climate change research to the agency that deals with the ocean and earth's atmosphere, it allows NASA to focus on space again, which is where their expertise is. Let the agency dedicated to earth's climate and atmosphere deal with climate change.

Dropping space exploration for Climate Change is a bad idea anyway, we should of been having that agency work on climate change all this time to begin with. The two need to be worked on simultaneously, not at different times, as they are both equally important for our advancement.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Tolvir

[Nobody]

Could this be a way to defund climate research, or limit it?

Honestly, I think climate research is way more important than space research. This is a controversial opinion of mine, but i don't find space research that important, like, at all.

[Tolvir]

Could this be a way to defund climate research, or limit it?

Honestly, I think climate research is way more important than space research. This is a controversial opinion of mine, but i don't find space research that important, like, at all.

This is the way I see it. I personally am a bit skeptic of Climate Change. I won't deny it, as science is always changing and finding new things, which could include more proof of climate change, but I won't outright confirm it either. I will agree that more research can be done on it, as it never hurts.

In regards to space, I think it is extremely important. It is the next logical step for our species. No matter what we do, Our stay on Earth is finite. With a growing population that the earth won't be able to support, we are going to need to expand to other planets. That and I think putting all of our efforts into climate change is putting all of your eggs in one basket. What happens if we find out there is no way to prevent it? What happens if climate change, o matter what we do, will destroy life on this planet? We will need a back up plan, and that is space exploration. We avoid space exploration, then we are only dooming our race in the future. Whether it be from climate change, overpopulation, or any other reason. They are of equal importance, or at least that is how I see it.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Tolvir

[CyborgZeta]

Honestly, I think climate research is way more important than space research. This is a controversial opinion of mine, but i don't find space research that important, like, at all.

Preparing for climate change is important, but I believe space research to be absolutely critical to the survival of humanity.

Earth won't be around forever; even if nothing else happens to it, the Sun will eventually become a Red Giant and engulf the Earth (or get close enough to render it uninhabitable).

If humanity wants to have a future as a species, we're going to need to eventually spread out into space. Mars is the stepping stone, and the sooner we can get things started, the better.

[Sunwoo]

Preparing for climate change is important, but I believe space research to be absolutely critical to the survival of humanity.

Earth won't be around forever; even if nothing else happens to it, the Sun will eventually become a Red Giant and engulf the Earth (or get close enough to render it uninhabitable).

If humanity wants to have a future as a species, we're going to need to eventually spread out into space. Mars is the stepping stone, and the sooner we can get things started, the better.

This is some really confusing logic. Space research is critical to the survival of humanity, because the Sun will eventually expand and destroy the Earth in several billion years, even though climate change has the potential to render the Earth inhospitable a lot sooner than that? (And in some cases already has?)

There is no guarantee that humanity will even be alive by the time the Sun is ready to explode and engulf the Earth, not because of climate change but just because there's no guarantee humanity as a species will survive that long. Climate change, on the other hand, is happening now, has been happening for a while, and has started to render some places uninhabitable. Humanity is not going to survive long enough to leave Earth if we don't do something to curb climate change now.

[Phoenix Wright]

Earth won't be around forever; even if nothing else happens to it, the Sun will eventually become a Red Giant and engulf the Earth (or get close enough to render it uninhabitable).

If humanity wants to have a future as a species, we're going to need to eventually spread out into space. Mars is the stepping stone, and the sooner we can get things started, the better.

long before that (about 2 billion years from now), because of the sun's steady increase in its luminosity, the earth will be rendered too hot to host life. but guess what,

Preparing for climate change is important, but I believe space research to be absolutely critical to the survival of humanity.

the effects of this happen many orders of magnitude sooner.

we are in a climate crisis, and it is imperative that we all take the necessary steps to combat it.

@nobody: you can thank space research for over 2000 commercial advances in addition to technical advances that help in dozens of fields. this is of course not even mentioning the importance of exploration and telemetry/data gathering.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Nobody]

@nobody: you can thank space research for over 2000 commercial advances in addition to technical advances that help in dozens of fields. this is of course not even mentioning the importance of exploration and telemetry/data gathering.

oh, thanks for clearing that up. I knew there should be more to it. Most times people bring up space exploration, they only talk about stuff that is imo useless like finding a replacement for earth for an event that will only happen millions of years from now in the earliest, finding extraterrestrial life and this sort of thing, and also theoretical physics, which while great from a scientific viewpoint apparently didn't have that much of an impact in people's lives, and I never really bothered personally searching what they were actually about, so yeah I stand corrected, it's pretty important.

I just wish people would talk more about the functional, rather than the "cool" aspect of it (not the scientists or researches, like, the actual people), because IMO that's ultimately what's important, not finding an planet similar to earth millions of light years from here. Or even the so dreamed discovery of extraterrestrial life form we'd never be able to contact.

To everyone else, I think worrying about the destruction of Earth because of an astrophysical event shouldn't particularly be a big concern. Just think where humanity was, from a scientific viewpoint, a thousand years ago. That is like, a very short time from that point. IMO Global Warming and the like is way more serious than that. By the time earth become an uninhabitable planet for natural causes, it's impossible to even imagine where science will be.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Life]

I find it funny that climate alarmists talk about climate change with the rhetoric of religion. As if I don't agree on a point that they make (like that the government is the only entity that can fight climate change), I am essentially a heretic.

[Radiant head]

i agree, science and anti-science are equally valid IMO

[Nobody]

I find it funny that climate alarmists talk about climate change with the rhetoric of religion. As if I don't agree on a point that they make (like that the government is the only entity that can fight climate change), I am essentially a heretic.

This comparison is absurd. One is scientific, studied rigorously, based on empirical and theoretical data, subject to all sort of researches to inquire its authenticity. The other is merely based on faith. This is not a valid comparison in any way.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Time the Crestfallen]

I find it funny that climate alarmists talk about climate change with the rhetoric of religion. As if I don't agree on a point that they make (like that the government is the only entity that can fight climate change), I am essentially a heretic.

Nice strawmanning.

You'll note that no-one is saying that the government is the only entity that can fight climate change, but that governments taking away funding for climate research is at best stupidly short-sighted and at worst suicidally self-destructive. Besides, the only alternatives I've seen you suggest are "promoting science (which politicians, especially right-leaning politicians, haven't been doing for a long time) and self-care responsibility (which isn't going to do jack-shit in the long term as long as governments continue to put off looking into clean-energy alternatives)" with little-to-no justifications for these views beyond the typical 'governments doing things I don't like is forcing a gun to my head' as your only response to criticism of these ideas, so maybe you should start actually justifying your positions rather than complaining when people take issue with your points.

[CyborgZeta]

This is some really confusing logic. Space research is critical to the survival of humanity, because the Sun will eventually expand and destroy the Earth in several billion years, even though climate change has the potential to render the Earth inhospitable a lot sooner than that? (And in some cases already has?)

I see no confusion. It's important to ensure we can continue living on Earth, but it's also important to make sure that humanity is not stuck on Earth. Regardless of how long humanity actually lasts, it is always important to plan ahead.

There are other threats aside from the Sun's eventual fate. An asteroid impact, or a nearby gamma-ray burst pointed in Earth's direction would be disastrous. The Chelyabinsk meteor back in 2013 was undetected before its atmosphere entry; Russia was lucky that factors led to an air burst rather than a full impact.

[Sunwoo]

I see no confusion. It's important to ensure we can continue living on Earth, but it's also important to make sure that humanity is not stuck on Earth. Regardless of how long humanity actually lasts, it is always important to plan ahead.

So you'd rather focus on getting off the planet and finding a new hospitable one, something that may be impossible for a variety of reasons including but not limited to potential lack of a hospitable environment or the light years distance between our planet and the next potential hospitable one, instead of focusing on getting our shit together and protecting the Earth we know for sure we can live on?

While space research is important, for sure, we should not be prioritizing that over protecting the Earth we live on first. You sound like someone who would rather throw away what we know for sure we have for something hypothetical you think will be better, instead of working on better what we do have now. Even if we could "colonize" space, there will always be asteroid impacts. There will always be expanding suns. There will always be "gamma ray-bursts". These things will just be there no matter where we go. Also, climate change is a threat that is happening in the world we live in. This may be the only home we've got so we should focus on taking care of that first, instead of on finding a new home that may or may not exist.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Sunwoo

[blah the Prussian]

Preparing for climate change is important, but I believe space research to be absolutely critical to the survival of humanity.

Earth won't be around forever; even if nothing else happens to it, the Sun will eventually become a Red Giant and engulf the Earth (or get close enough to render it uninhabitable).

If humanity wants to have a future as a species, we're going to need to eventually spread out into space. Mars is the stepping stone, and the sooner we can get things started, the better.

"And if studying these creatures has taught us anything, it's this: no species lasts forever."

-Kenneth Branaugh, Walking With Beasts

Seriously, we wont last forever. Our extinction or evolution into something better will come, and that isn't a bad thing, just how nature works. It probably, however, wont come for millions of years. Climate Change, however, has the potential to bring about our extinction much faster.

[Lord Raven]

I find it funny that climate alarmists talk about climate change with the rhetoric of religion. As if I don't agree on a point that they make (like that the government is the only entity that can fight climate change), I am essentially a heretic.

I like how this is irrelevant, where has anyone done that here? Namely, demonize you for going against government funding. Unless you're playing a victim card because someone disagreed with you on principle, and expressed their thought.

In either case, people who don't believe in climate change are anti-science... it's like denying 2+2=4.

I see no confusion. It's important to ensure we can continue living on Earth, but it's also important to make sure that humanity is not stuck on Earth. Regardless of how long humanity actually lasts, it is always important to plan ahead.

There are other threats aside from the Sun's eventual fate. An asteroid impact, or a nearby gamma-ray burst pointed in Earth's direction would be disastrous. The Chelyabinsk meteor back in 2013 was undetected before its atmosphere entry; Russia was lucky that factors led to an air burst rather than a full impact.

Are you asserting that we should curtail funding towards a relatively immediate crisis to a long-term issue?

I'm also curious as to what you're actually trying to say. You're saying we should try space exploration research because literally anything can happen and shit goes kaput, but you are also talking about science having to advance at a completely unrealistic rate. I should note: it takes 10 years roundtrip, if you're lucky, to get to Mars and back; this is not something with a short term solution, and this is merely Mars. I know you're a Gundam fan and it feels like you're suggesting something similar to a Jupiter expedition, but that's not something we can realistically do in the near future, especially since this is something that seems to be what amounts to emergency insurance in case a huge disaster happens. Climate change funding is for correcting for a much more immediate and measurable concern that will affect us in a number of decades.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Lord Raven

[ping]

I apologize.

[eclipse]

I find it funny that climate alarmists talk about climate change with the rhetoric of religion. As if I don't agree on a point that they make (like that the government is the only entity that can fight climate change), I am essentially a heretic.

Rather than resort to the reactionary stance, I shall instead ask you to explain this point.

What I agree on is that the government isn't the only one that can do something about it. However, I don't think that the ones causing the most pollution will suddenly have a change of heart and do things in a more eco-friendly way, especially if it cuts into profits. I'm willing to do what little I can, but my individual impact is relatively low.