New report on climate change released today

[angelo]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

go bury your head in the sand angelo, and get your butt burned by the temperature increase - I don't really care. Continue to deny so you can keep your precious untruth so that you can continue to try and keep things always the same - because change scares the shit out of you. The rest of us will move forward with science and facts.

Is this the " consensus" you're alluding to? https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

go bury your head in the sand angelo, and get your butt burned by the temperature increase - I don't really care. Continue to deny so you can keep your precious untruth so that you can continue to try and keep things always the same - because change scares the shit out of you. The rest of us will move forward with science and facts.

Is this the " consensus" you're alluding to? https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

First off, I'm glad that you tried to find some scientific links that support your position. You're making progress! But you gotta keep looking. The source you found is crap. The skeptical science group are a bunch of Christian fanatics desperately trying to find "science" that fits their ideology. According to Wiki, John Cook is a solar physicist who says that he is "... he is motivated by his Christian beliefs. He is one of a number of Christians publicly arguing for scientific findings on anthropogenic global warming, and is an evangelical Christian."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

 

[untermensche]

Yes, Christians have and cause many problems.

They certainly have problems with science.

That is nothing new.

They choose superstition over reason.

 

[ruby sparks]

Is this the "consensus" you're alluding to? https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Yes, from skimming that, I think it is. Why the inverted commas? It's a consensus. More to the point, it's a consensus of relevant experts, arguably the most compelling type of consensus there is.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You're in lala land here.

Piercing counter-argument.

You'll have a ton of power in the day, no power at night. There's no good storage system yet.

There are plenty of already existing and operating storage systems.

You'll have a huge production of batteries

Not necessarily (see above).

something that's nowhere near environmentally benign.

It doesn't have to be 100% environmentally "benign." China and the US cause 43% of the problem. Dropping that down to India levels and we've stopped 40% of the problem right there, which in turn extends the drop dead date. Not be a whole helluva lot at this point, but it's a matter of long term benefits.

Again, it's like a sniper's rifle, or a ripple on a pond.

But, of course, that would only be a one-time expenditure and the savings--including our lives--would be enormous.

And those systems never wear out?

As opposed to? By the time any of them wear out, we will already have converted all industry to equally carbon efficient manufacturing facilities, so the carbon "cost" of replacing them won't be anywhere near what it currently is.

This isn't a matter of going cold turkey (though that's what we will eventually be forced to do because people are fucking morons who willingly walk right into the abattoir of their own making.

And they work everywhere, or do we have to abandon much of the world's land?

Everywhere the sun shines and combined with wind power and salt storage units like the ones outlined in the above links and any of the dozen or so additional solutions that very smart people are already working on, it would be possible to reduce the world's residential greenhouse gas impact by something on the order of 90-95% (?) pretty much within a year or two and within five years for industry?

It's just a matter of money after all. And the order--and enforcement--to do it.

 

[bilby]

The Germans tried to decarbonise with wind and solar over the course of a couple of decades. They failed.

The French tried to cut their dependence on imported fossil fuels over the course of a couple of decades. They succeeded, and decarbonised as a side effect of that strategy.

The only demonstrated way to cut carbon emissions from electricity generation significantly, in a developed country, in less than twenty years, is nuclear power. It's also cheaper than renewables plus storage; and it's just a matter of the political will to do it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are plenty of already existing and operating storage systems.

Except none of those is ready to be put into production. They're simply promising research, and note that the efficiencies of such systems are low, you'll need a lot more collector area.

And those systems never wear out?

As opposed to? By the time any of them wear out, we will already have converted all industry to equally carbon efficient manufacturing facilities, so the carbon "cost" of replacing them won't be anywhere near what it currently is.

I was talking about the financial aspects--your cost estimate is way low because of this.

And they work everywhere, or do we have to abandon much of the world's land?

Everywhere the sun shines and combined with wind power and salt storage units like the ones outlined in the above links and any of the dozen or so additional solutions that very smart people are already working on, it would be possible to reduce the world's residential greenhouse gas impact by something on the order of 90-95% (?) pretty much within a year or two and within five years for industry?

You said local food. I live in a desert, the ability to produce food is severely limited by the available water. You'll find the same problem in much of the world, it's simply not possible to grow enough food locally.

 

[angelo]

I love the "activist with an agenda" line. Yes, someone who cares about a specific issue is an activist who has an agenda. And? I do agree it would be hypocritical of him to use a private jet for travel, though, for example. In my opinion climate change activists should do as much as they possibly can to travel as little as possible. This also means David Attenborough should stop producing so many documentaries, as much as I enjoy them. It's just gratuitous at this point.

The coal industry says that global warming is a lie. I don't care what that activist with an agenda says... I believe the coal companies!

What were the populace of the medieval warming period burning that the overall global temperature was approx 1C higher than today?


https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

Except that it is. I was an anthropomorphic climate change denier until the IPCC report came in 2001. Then I changed my mind. Because of the science.

 

[angelo]

Geologists deal in the millions of years, not in decades like most alarmists do. There were times when Greenland was ice free just a short time ago [measured in earth times]. The Vikings actually established agriculture there. Any Geologist worth his salt and honest can put up a strong argument against the activists and alarmists. There's nothing new under the sun. There are too many climate variables to point the finger at one cause. The main one is our parent the Sun among many others including tectonic plates and natural causes!

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-global-warming/

 

[ruby sparks]

As far as I can see, the case for being able to produce most or all of the world's energy needs via nuclear is roughly on a par with the case for being able to produce most or all of our energy via renewables. Both are in theory possible. The main obstacle in both cases seems to be political will. A concerted push for either seems capable of making an enormous difference. Almost all developed countries are moving away from nuclear and towards renewables (in both cases as alternatives to fossil fuels). Renewable energy is generally on the rise and nuclear is generally in decline (there are exceptions). This is the current trend and it is likely to continue. The downsides of renewables seem to be far fewer than for nuclear, so in many ways it makes more sense to support renewables over nuclear, going forward, if one were to choose between the two.

As well as the well-known examples of Costa Rica (99% of energy production from renewables), Paraguay (100%) and Iceland (100%), there is Norway at 98%, New Zealand at 81%, Austria at 80%, Denmark at 70%, Switzerland at 65% and Portugal at 50%. Most of these percentages are rising and several more developed countries (and most undeveloped ones) have signed up to significant renewables targets for 2050.

List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

100% renewable energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%_renewable_energy

That said, I accept that there is a case for nuclear as part of an overall portfolio of countermeasures.

 

[repoman]

Geologists deal in the millions of years, not in decades like most alarmists do. There were times when Greenland was ice free just a short time ago [measured in earth times]. The Vikings actually established agriculture there. Any Geologist worth his salt and honest can put up a strong argument against the activists and alarmists. There's nothing new under the sun. There are too many climate variables to point the finger at one cause. The main one is our parent the Sun among many others including tectonic plates and natural causes!

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-global-warming/

We have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 406 ppm and decent increase in methane in the blink of another blink of yet another blink of an eye in the geological sense. This is insanely rapid. It is utterly unprecedented. Fuck off with your Koch brother talking points.

Next will be total tundra dissolution and the outgass of its carbon stores and then arctic shelf outgassing.

Arctic albedo is dropping like a rock. That is a massive radiation energy balance swing that we will not get back.

You are smart enough to see a possible risk from incompatible cultures coming together in too fast a manner, but that involves a lot of variables.

The variables for climate change are much fewer and and constrained. CO2 does only one thing, it keeps heat in. It will do it until its levels go down. Are you a literal idiot, not to get this through your head? Your ignorance disgusts me.

Go fuck a needle using suicidal prostitute bareback after after rubbing your peehole raw with pumice, because hey viruses have happened all throughout history anyway...

That is what we are doing to the health of the planet in terms of what is healthy for humans to survive in. 450 ppm -500 ppm is possible for our descendants. That is going to be rough and will persist for 10's of thousands of years without a MAJOR intervention to sequester the CO2.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As far as I can see, the case for being able to produce most or all of the world's energy needs via nuclear is roughly on a par with the case for being able to produce most or all of our energy via renewables. Both are in theory possible. The main obstacle in both cases seems to be political will. A concerted push for either seems capable of making an enormous difference. Almost all developed countries are moving away from nuclear and towards renewables (in both cases as alternatives to fossil fuels). Renewable energy is generally on the rise and nuclear is generally in decline. This is the current trend and it is likely to continue. The downsides of renewables seem to be far fewer than for nuclear, so in many ways it makes more sense to support renewables over nuclear, going forward, if one were to choose between the two.

As well as the well-known examples of Costa Rica (99% of energy production from renewables), Paraguay (100%) and Iceland (100%), there is Norway at 98%, New Zealand at 81%, Austria at 80%, Denmark at 70%, Switzerland at 65% and Portugal at 50%. Most of these percentages are rising and several more developed countries (and most undeveloped ones) have signed up to significant renewables targets for 2050.

List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

100% renewable energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%_renewable_energy

That said, I accept that there is a case for nuclear as part of an overall portfolio of countermeasures.

The one's in the list that have high degrees of renewables live in extreme areas. Denmark is one of the windiest places on Earth. That's why wind power is so good for them. Iceland sits on an abundance of hot springs. Or you've mentioned places which, due to a lack of development uses extremely little grid electricity. So instead they use gasoline or coal, burned at home in private. Which doesn't prove anything. Unless we're sitting on something quite extreme renewables are off the table.

The upside with nuclear is that we'll never run out of fuel. We will at some point. But after our star has burned up this planet anyway.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's very complicated. I am sure there are upsides and downsides to both. It does not seem to be either or.

There does not seem to be agreement, for example, that renewables are only a suitable option in extreme climates and I think it is going a bit far to say that the ones in the list are extreme, given that there are so many who are getting or aiming for significant results.

 

[angelo]

Geologists deal in the millions of years, not in decades like most alarmists do. There were times when Greenland was ice free just a short time ago [measured in earth times]. The Vikings actually established agriculture there. Any Geologist worth his salt and honest can put up a strong argument against the activists and alarmists. There's nothing new under the sun. There are too many climate variables to point the finger at one cause. The main one is our parent the Sun among many others including tectonic plates and natural causes!

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-global-warming/

We have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 406 ppm and decent increase in methane in the blink of another blink of yet another blink of an eye in the geological sense. This is insanely rapid. It is utterly unprecedented. Fuck off with your Koch brother talking points.

Next will be total tundra dissolution and the outgass of its carbon stores and then arctic shelf outgassing.

Arctic albedo is dropping like a rock. That is a massive radiation energy balance swing that we will not get back.

You are smart enough to see a possible risk from incompatible cultures coming together in too fast a manner, but that involves a lot of variables.

The variables for climate change are much fewer and and constrained. CO2 does only one thing, it keeps heat in. It will do it until its levels go down. Are you a literal idiot, not to get this through your head? Your ignorance disgusts me.

Go fuck a needle using suicidal prostitute bareback after after rubbing your peehole raw with pumice, because hey viruses have happened all throughout history anyway...

That is what we are doing to the health of the planet in terms of what is healthy for humans to survive in. 450 ppm -500 ppm is possible for our descendants. That is going to be rough and will persist for 10's of thousands of years without a MAJOR intervention to sequester the CO2.

Yes, that's typical alarmist response. Attack, attack attack just like a religious zealot. Pray tell, what do you propose we do with the main instigator of greenhouse effect, water vapor?

 

[ruby sparks]

In a nutshell angelo, you have not got the slightest clue what you are talking about. You should stop making a complete fool of yourself.

 

[angelo]

In a nutshell angelo, you have not got the slightest clue what you are talking about. You should stop making a complete fool of yourself.

That response is precisely why most lay people reject the alarmist/activist position!

 

[ruby sparks]

You are an embarrassment to rational thinking.

 

[untermensche]

In a nutshell angelo, you have not got the slightest clue what you are talking about. You should stop making a complete fool of yourself.

Usually you have to go to the US to find such ignorance.

Humanity is driving over a cliff.

As fast as it can.

There is nothing alarmist about getting a little upset because you are driving over a cliff.

Those profiting from this endeavor want it to continue.

And fools support their efforts in total ignorance.

Those that don't know the science and can't possibly know the truth still support those driving the bus over the cliff.

Such faith in humanity is rare.

That it is faith in the lowest self-interested scum, people like Trump, makes it disturbing and shows some humans to be very ignorant creatures.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I love the "activist with an agenda" line. Yes, someone who cares about a specific issue is an activist who has an agenda. And? I do agree it would be hypocritical of him to use a private jet for travel, though, for example. In my opinion climate change activists should do as much as they possibly can to travel as little as possible. This also means David Attenborough should stop producing so many documentaries, as much as I enjoy them. It's just gratuitous at this point.

The coal industry says that global warming is a lie. I don't care what that activist with an agenda says... I believe the coal companies!

What were the populace of the medieval warming period burning that the overall global temperature was approx 1C higher than today?


https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

How come you didn’t die when you slowed you car down from 100 kph to 0 kph? Shouldn’t such a thing almost certainly kill you?