Suppose Climate Change is real, but we can’t stop it (2 Viewers)

[samiam5211]

At some point even the Greatas of the world may have to admit that climate change is not something we can prevent. Whether or not it is human caused, there will be a point if no return.

Where is the point where humanity is better served by focusing resources on adaptation rather than prevention?

There is likely much overlap between prevention and adaptation.

One example of this might be the activists’ push against fossil fuels...

Maybe we should be trying use as much solar power as possible now to save fossil fuels for a time when we have a period of glaciation in an area where humans live today? Maybe we will need that oil and gas should there be a time when the Midwest is below freezing five months a year. This is not an uncommon situation in Earth’s relatively recent history.

I do believe that the climate is changing and that we will fail to stop it, and we are the ancestors of people who will have to grow their food in different regions from us and get their energy from different places.

The sooner humanity begins to diversify these necessities the better.

 

[superchuck500]

Interesting, particularly Graham.

Graham made comments two weeks ago that he has "accepted that climate change is real" - so I suppose this is evidence of that?

He's always very hard to predict because he's a total political chameleon - many of them are but he's particularly adaptable. This could be a authentic new viewpoint for him, who knows.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[MT15]

Do you consider this guy a credible source? Or you just post his stuff because it appeals to you?
Have you looked into his positions, or anything like that?

 

[Dragon]

Do you consider this guy a credible source? Or you just post his stuff because it appeals to you?
Have you looked into his positions, or anything like that?

He is a journalist - not a scientist. Google him and you'll see what kind of guy he is. He takes great pride in the number of neuclear reactors he has helped "save"

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

But to the larger point, any sort of energy consumption contributes to entropy. The best way to slow that down is to consume less. After that, it's consuming energy in the least intrusive way possible with the knowledge we have at the time. As we learn more, we adjust.

 

[MT15]

He is a journalist - not a scientist. Google him and you'll see what kind of guy he is. He takes great pride in the number of neuclear reactors he has helped "save"

Oh, I did a very quick look. He wants over 50% of our power to come from nuclear reactors. He even commented admiringly about Russia’s ability to build nuclear reactors cheaply and efficiently.

I’m not sure what his motivation is. Maybe he gets paid by that industry.

I don’t think his assertions about solar panels are accepted wisdom, though. I think he should probably not be a trusted source of information on these issues, as he clearly has an axe to grind.

I was hoping to figure out what SFL thinks about this - when he posts tweets does it mean he agrees with everything said? Or is it more like - hey here‘s a somewhat controversial opinion, should we talk about what this guy says?

 

[Dragon]

The big issue I have with those who claim that climate change/Global warming isn't real, is that it is almost like Trump 18 month ago. "This isn't real", "only one or two people will die" and wasting precious time better used to getting ready and maybe avoid the worst posible scenarios.

Heat records are being set world wide, Massive fires are burning on multiple continents, The arctic are melting faster than even the experts expected. Water shortages are killing people and the changes are happening fast. Coincident - I don't know - I'm no expert but I'd rather try to follow the advice of those who has spend a lifetime researching the way our climate works than bury my head in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong.

 

[porculator]

Oh, I did a very quick look. He wants over 50% of our power to come from nuclear reactors. He even commented admiringly about Russia’s ability to build nuclear reactors cheaply and efficiently.

I’m not sure what his motivation is. Maybe he gets paid by that industry.

I don’t think his assertions about solar panels are accepted wisdom, though. I think he should probably not be a trusted source of information on these issues, as he clearly has an axe to grind.

I was hoping to figure out what SFL thinks about this - when he posts tweets does it mean he agrees with everything said? Or is it more like - hey here‘s a somewhat controversial opinion, should we talk about what this guy says?

Generally when someone talks about solar panels (or electric car batteries) not being as "clean" as advertised, its just to troll the libs. But there is nothing groundbreaking about acknowledging that solar panels aren't a silver bullet.

Nuclear is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet now, and I'm of the opinion that its really our only hope to curb climate change at this point and we have to scale it up and accept the risks. I'm all for ramping up solar and wind too where it makes sense, but ironically the most liberal states are also the ones with the least sun, and I feel like places like New York are putting their eggs in the wrong basket when they require solar panel roofs while refusing to build new nuclear plants.

 

[Dragon]

Generally when someone talks about solar panels (or electric car batteries) not being as "clean" as advertised, its just to troll the libs. But there is nothing groundbreaking about acknowledging that solar panels aren't a silver bullet.

Nuclear is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet now, and I'm of the opinion that its really our only hope to curb climate change at this point and we have to scale it up and accept the risks. I'm all for ramping up solar and wind too where it makes sense, but ironically the most liberal states are also the ones with the least sun, and I feel like places like New York are putting their eggs in the wrong basket when they require solar panel roofs while refusing to build new nuclear plants.

Use the renewable energy sources that makes sense at the location. Denmark is certainly not known as a very sunny place - at least not half the year. Many homeowners are still installing solar power when building a new house or renovating the roofs on older buildings. and combined with a progressive "net sum energy solution" (The grid buy excess daytime power and provide nightime power at a 1:1 rate) it allows the homeowners to utilizes their instalations to the max, but our main renewable energy comes from wind.

https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-leads-the-charge-in-renewable-energy/a-17603695

 

[superchuck500]

Wet Bulb temperature is the scariest part of climate change you’ve never heard of

Whole cities may soon become uninhabitable

medium.com

 

[Dragon]

Earth is warming faster than previously thought, scientists say, and the window is closing to avoid catastrophic outcomes​

The state-of-the-science report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world has rapidly warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels, and is now careening toward 1.5 degrees — a critical threshold that world leaders agreed warming should remain below to avoid worsening impacts.

Even under the IPCC's most optimistic scenario, in which the world's emissions begin to drop sharply today and are reduced to net zero by 2050, global temperature will still peak above the 1.5-degree threshold before falling.
In a statement, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the report "a code red for humanity," and noted the 1.5-degree threshold is "perilously close."

I hope that somehow all the extreme weather this year will somehow make people wake up - but I doubt it

 

[Lapaz]

I have a hypothesis that Elon Musk may have endorsed Trump to help the world, because it might persuade conservatives to buy his electric cars. To a certain extent I thought of this since he was trying to convince Trump to do something about the climate. In the meantime, his support for Trump will drive Democrats away from Tesla, but there are plenty of other electric car options. Most Republicans don't want to buy an electric car to reduce the impact on the climate, but if it is a tool to stick it to Democrats, then they might. It could be as simple as selfishness, since he'll pay less taxes, but Musk is a complicated person, and thinks outside the box. At this point, I won't even consider a Tesla, but I wonder if Musk's motives are not as simple as most of us assume? If some day in the future, we discover that my hypothesis was true, and his motivation was to help the climate all along, then I'll reconsider Tesla.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/12/musk-trump-advice-climate-change-00173411

 

[bird]

I am reading The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet by Brett Christophers.

He argues that the issue is not the price of electricity generated by renewables but rather that investment demands return which is profit. I have just gotten started with it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I have a hypothesis that Elon Musk may have endorsed Trump to help the world, because it might persuade conservatives to buy his electric cars. To a certain extent I thought of this since he was trying to convince Trump to do something about the climate. In the meantime, his support for Trump will drive Democrats away from Tesla, but there are plenty of other electric car options. Most Republicans don't want to buy an electric car to reduce the impact on the climate, but if it is a tool to stick it to Democrats, then they might. It could be as simple as selfishness, since he'll pay less taxes, but Musk is a complicated person, and thinks outside the box. At this point, I won't even consider a Tesla, but I wonder if Musk's motives are not as simple as most of us assume? If some day in the future, we discover that my hypothesis was true, and his motivation was to help the climate all along, then I'll reconsider Tesla.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/12/musk-trump-advice-climate-change-00173411

When did Politico start doing satire pieces?

 

[Dragon]

We may be facing even more serious challenges than hurricanes. It’s estimated that approximately 50-80% of Earth's oxygen is produced by the oceans, primarily through the activity of phytoplankton—tiny, photosynthetic marine organisms that function similarly to land-based plants. Phytoplankton, alongside algae and certain bacteria, are not only critical for oxygen production but also play a vital role in the global carbon cycle by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

We are all aware of the unusual high sea water temperatures during the last few years and rising ocean temperatures pose a significant threat to this delicate balance. As oceans warm, the ecosystems supporting phytoplankton become increasingly unstable. Warmer waters reduce the availability of nutrients these organisms need to thrive, which can lead to a decline in phytoplankton populations. This, in turn, threatens the oxygen production that billions of organisms, including humans, depend on. Additionally, warming waters reduce the ocean's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, further exacerbating global climate change and disrupting the carbon cycle.

Acidification of the oceans, a result of increased CO₂ absorption, also jeopardizes marine life, including organisms that contribute to oxygen production. These changes could have far-reaching consequences for biodiversity, atmospheric composition, and our ability to combat climate change. Addressing ocean health and reducing global warming are critical not only for preserving marine ecosystems but also for ensuring the continued balance of our planet's oxygen supply and climate regulation.

Add to that the issue with micro-plastic, which when ingested by phytoplankton reduces the ability to absorb the CO2 and we are facing a very bleak future if something isnt done and FAST

 

[Lapaz]

We may be facing even more serious challenges than hurricanes. It’s estimated that approximately 50-80% of Earth's oxygen is produced by the oceans, primarily through the activity of phytoplankton—tiny, photosynthetic marine organisms that function similarly to land-based plants. Phytoplankton, alongside algae and certain bacteria, are not only critical for oxygen production but also play a vital role in the global carbon cycle by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

We are all aware of the unusual high sea water temperatures during the last few years and rising ocean temperatures pose a significant threat to this delicate balance. As oceans warm, the ecosystems supporting phytoplankton become increasingly unstable. Warmer waters reduce the availability of nutrients these organisms need to thrive, which can lead to a decline in phytoplankton populations. This, in turn, threatens the oxygen production that billions of organisms, including humans, depend on. Additionally, warming waters reduce the ocean's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, further exacerbating global climate change and disrupting the carbon cycle.

Acidification of the oceans, a result of increased CO₂ absorption, also jeopardizes marine life, including organisms that contribute to oxygen production. These changes could have far-reaching consequences for biodiversity, atmospheric composition, and our ability to combat climate change. Addressing ocean health and reducing global warming are critical not only for preserving marine ecosystems but also for ensuring the continued balance of our planet's oxygen supply and climate regulation.

Add to that the issue with micro-plastic, which when ingested by phytoplankton reduces the ability to absorb the CO2 and we are facing a very bleak future if something isnt done and FAST

it should be relatively easy to study the status of phytoplankton. One thing I didn’t understand is if CO2 is absorbed more in the oceans as they warm, and phytoplankton eats CO2, shouldn’t that cause the population to rise? Are there countervailing forces such as they can’t survive or thrive in that warmer water despite having more food?

Anyway, this just reinforces the complexity of the environment and how hard it is to model. That unfortunately adds to skepticism, although I don’t think most skeptics are thoughtful. Most are just skeptics for political or greedy reasons, however there is some validity to the idea that there are many uncertainties about how all of the forces at work will play out. I believe they are playing out worse than most expected, but I can understand some thinking climatologist were guessing and many hyperbolic. I can understand the people that think it was just a hidden agenda, but I know it was just scientists doing the best they could with their limited information, and seeing worsening trends that are obviously caused by humans. There has been a reasonable question posed by those that resisted drastic actions about whether the earth’s other forces would eventually counteract our actions. I have been of the opinion for many years that the gamble was too great to not take action even if there was a chance it was overstated, but there still remains doubt about how drastic our actions have to be. Unfortunately that means our actions will continue to be somewhat conservative. We’ll get a push for a Green Deal and put pressure on the world to follow, but then conservatives will undue some of the progress, so the path of progress will be sinusoidal.

 

[Dragon]

When phytoplankton ingest microplastics, it can interfere with their ability to photosynthesize effectively, reducing the amount of oxygen they produce and their role in absorbing carbon dioxide. Add to that that many types of microplastics often carry toxic chemicals such as pesticides, heavy metals, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which can harm or outright kill phytoplankton

 

[LA - L.A.]

When phytoplankton ingest microplastics, it can interfere with their ability to photosynthesize effectively, reducing the amount of oxygen they produce and their role in absorbing carbon dioxide. Add to that that many types of microplastics often carry toxic chemicals such as pesticides, heavy metals, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which can harm or outright kill phytoplankton

I don't get the skepticism and questions some ask. Like the scientists studying this haven't studied every aspect of things thoroughly.

I also don't get the doubt that some have about the scope of the problem. Since the 1980's, every climate model has underestimated the speed and scale of climate change. No one should be questioning, "are they overestimating and overly alarmist?" The only reasonable question based on the constant results of almost 50 years of research and study should be, "how much faster will things get how much worse than scientists are currently predicting?"