Climate Change Denial

[qdeathstar]

Unfortunately, that excludes politicians as for example in the US Senate there are apparently only 49 vs 51 "reasonable person"s by this measure. Until that changes, I consider it a fact that increasing population will proportionally increase CO2, so I think in any case we need to solve the CO2 problem first. Solar technology is already crossing the line to greatness, yet what needs to improve is our willingness to use the right technology in a "reasonable" manner. And, by the way, "adapting" to climate change isn't enough, we need to *prevent* it.

I agree. Luckily for the most part the technology and progress we need to make will happen anyway, for monetary reasons, not political ones.


And let’s say the world gets 10 degrees warmer. So what. What will result in population control and the earth will have naturally resolved its problems.

That’s how it works. Not great, but it will all work out for the earth. For us, who knows.

 

[Norbert]

I agree. Luckily for the most part the technology and progress we need to make will happen anyway, for monetary reasons, not political ones.

You wouldn't call that luck since the CO2 being produced in the meantime stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

And let’s say the world gets 10 degrees warmer. So what. What will result in population control and the earth will have naturally resolved its problems.

That’s how it works. Not great, but it will all work out for the earth. For us, who knows.

Wait, what, are you talking about 10 degrees Celsius as a global average temperature increase over the whole year?
That would be such a huge disaster (both nationally and globally) that I won't even try to describe it. Even in Fahrenheit, that would be beyond anything called disaster or catastrophy, by sea level rise alone, you won't fix that with sandbags along the coast.

So I'll just assume that I didn't quite understand your "so what" comment, or otherwise that you are not informed on that matter.

 

[holeydonut]

What can you say, really? At some point these deniers are no longer going to be able to pretend.

I think you're underestimating the power of denial.

Some people still think the January 6 thing was just a rowdy group of tourists
Some people still think widespread voter fraud corrupted the last US election
Some people still think the Holocaust was a hoax
Some people still think the Earth is flat

 

[Crutonius]

I agree. Luckily for the most part the technology and progress we need to make will happen anyway, for monetary reasons, not political ones.


And let’s say the world gets 10 degrees warmer. So what. What will result in population control and the earth will have naturally resolved its problems.

That’s how it works. Not great, but it will all work out for the earth. For us, who knows.

Sort of. The earth will remain as a big rock orbiting the sun regardless of global warming.

But this is quite a bit more complicated than just everything is warmer for a while.

Take the American west for example. You might have heard of the drought we've been having. Part of this is population growth. But a big part of this is climate change. The ground is hotter so it takes more water to grow crops. The snow fall pattern is altered or reduced so places like the great salt lake are drying up. As the lake dries the salt content rises. The existing marine life will die along with the species that depend on that. If it dries out completely then the next time the wind kicks up it'll blow all the nasty stuff that's been setting to the bottom of the lake all over salt lake city.

In addition to the Colorado River drying up the rainfall that northern California uses has shifted north. In less than 5 years this large region of the country is going to have to make some drastic cuts to water usage. Agriculture is where most of this water goes.

This is just an example from a rich country that can buy their way out of that problem. What happens when climate change wrecks the agricultural output of poorer countries?

 

[qdeathstar]

You wouldn't call that luck since the CO2 being produced in the meantime stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.



Wait, what, are you talking about 10 degrees Celsius as a global average temperature increase over the whole year?
That would be such a huge disaster (both nationally and globally) that I won't even try to describe it. Even in Fahrenheit, that would be beyond anything called disaster or catastrophy, by sea level rise alone, you won't fix that with sandbags along the coast.

So I'll just assume that I didn't quite understand your "so what" comment, or otherwise that you are not informed on that matter.

No I understand it just fine, you over estimate humanities importance to the planet. If things get too bad the planet will auto correct. But humanity will survive just fine. Once our population starts to decrease then I reckon politicians will get on board or get their heads cut off.

 

[Norbert]

No I understand it just fine, you over estimate humanities importance to the planet. If things get too bad the planet will auto correct. But humanity will survive just fine. Once our population starts to decrease then I reckon politicians will get on board or get their heads cut off.

It will be fine as long as it is not an extinction level event? Or what will be "just fine"? Where are you getting this kind of thinking from? FoxNews?

Just one of the problems with waiting until climate change decreases the population (good grief), is that the amount of CO2 that will cause that to happen, will then stay in the amtosphere for hundreds of years. So it will keep "decreasing the population" for a really long time, even if new CO2 emissions go down to zero at that point. And for what?

 

[qdeathstar]

It will be fine as long as it is not an extinction level event? Or what will be "just fine"? Where are you getting this kind of thinking from? FoxNews?

Just one of the problems with waiting until climate change decreases the population (good grief), is that the amount of CO2 that will cause that to happen, will then stay in the amtosphere for hundreds of years. So it will keep "decreasing the population" for a really long time, even if new CO2 emissions go down to zero at that point. And for what?

Yes, it will be just fine as long as it is not an extinction level event.

 

[qdeathstar]

By the way, unless this is the only topic to talk about climate change I disagree with my posts being moved to climate change denial. I don’t deny climate change or that man is responsible for it r that we need to do something about it.

I disagree with being miopic about it because in the end if we don’t sort it out, earth will.

 

[qdeathstar]

Nuclear is the slowest and most expensive to build. Not exactly the parameters needed to make a difference.

Now I agree that Solar and wind are more viable, cheaper, cleaner, better in every conceivable way.

But if we had of switched to nuclear power in earnest in the 70s and 80s a lot of the fossil fuel plants would have already been shut down.

 

[Big Dog]

Nuclear is the slowest and most expensive to build. Not exactly the parameters needed to make a difference.

Nuclear is only slow to build in the US. (China is cranking them out every year.)

 

[DrGriz]

I think you're underestimating the power of denial.

Some people still think the January 6 thing was just a rowdy group of tourists
Some people still think widespread voter fraud corrupted the last US election
Some people still think the Holocaust was a hoax
Some people still think the Earth is flat

Well, yes. There's denial, and then there's stupid, which, multiple randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled studies have shown, cannot be fixed.

 

[DrGriz]

Yes, it will be just fine as long as it is not an extinction level event.

There's a lot of agreement that we are presently in the middle of an extinction level event.

THE SIXTH MASS EXTINCTION​

• According to recent estimates, species are becoming extinct at least 1,000 times faster than they would without human impacts.
• Populations of wild animals have declined by more than two-thirds since 1970, while the human population has more than doubled.
• Only five times before in our planet’s history have so many species and so much biodiversity been lost so quickly. The fifth was when the dinosaurs were wiped out. That is why scientists and conservationists call what is happening now the Sixth Mass Extinction. Some have even described the loss of biodiversity today as ‘biological annihilation’.

 

[Norbert]

By the way, unless this is the only topic to talk about climate change I disagree with my posts being moved to climate change denial. I don’t deny climate change or that man is responsible for it r that we need to do something about it.

I disagree with being miopic about it because in the end if we don’t sort it out, earth will.

Due to your narrow focus on technological progress as such, the goal posts eventually moved from sustainable population growth to avoiding an extinction level event, thereby evading the severity of the climate change problem and going off-topic. At least that's my understanding.

 

[qdeathstar]

Due to your narrow focus on technological progress as such, the goal posts eventually moved from sustainable population growth to avoiding an extinction level event, thereby evading the severity of the climate change problem and going off-topic. At least that's my understanding.

What goal posts? Why do you get to set goal posts? Let me walk you through what happened, according to me:

My point was climate change is being addressed through technology. Where mankind was in 1922 in terms of technology gave little hints about where mankind was in 2022, and the same will hold true for 2122. Then someone decided to get myopic about climate change technology and say no technological progress has been made on emissions over the last 100 years (which is wrong but also a stupid way to look at things). Then I said that said that technological progress will definitely be made over the next 100 years regarding emissions because it will make $$ to do it, and then the response I got was “there are 49 senators who will stand in the way of progress” and my response to that was eventually it will be addressed or those guys will have their heads skewered because things will get bad enough eventually that civil unrest will happen. But if it turns out that moment was too late, enough people will die to solve global warming naturally.

I don’t think I moved any goal posts, but I do think there was a lot of whining about how impossible and hopeless everything is.

 

[JRP3]

Nuclear is only slow to build in the US. (China is cranking them out every year.)

Indeed and I'm much less comfortable with their standards and pace than ours. Even so it takes them about 5 years to build one, not exactly "cranking" compared to wind and solar.

China nuclear: Taishan reactor shut down over damaged fuel rods

The operator says the EPR reactor at Taishan in China is "under control" despite fuel rod concerns.

www.bbc.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/04/china-has-an-awful-safety-record-and-wants-to-run-110-nuclear-reactors-by-2030/

"The speed of building nuclear power is already very fast, it is unparalleled in the world," he said. "There is already risk for major nuclear accidents."
"If China builds more than 50 nuclear reactors, the risk for a major accident would be very huge."

 

[Norbert]

What goal posts? Why do you get to set goal posts? Let me walk you through what happened, according to me:

My point was climate change is being addressed through technology. Where mankind was in 1922 in terms of technology gave little hints about where mankind was in 2022, and the same will hold true for 2122. Then someone decided to get myopic about climate change technology and say no technological progress has been made on emissions over the last 100 years (which is wrong but also a stupid way to look at things). Then I said that said that technological progress will definitely be made over the next 100 years regarding emissions because it will make $$ to do it, and then the response I got was “there are 49 senators who will stand in the way of progress” and my response to that was eventually it will be addressed or those guys will have their heads skewered because things will get bad enough eventually that civil unrest will happen. But if it turns out that moment was too late, enough people will die to solve global warming naturally.

I don’t think I moved any goal posts, but I do think there was a lot of whining about how impossible and hopeless everything is.

The thing is that it doesn't matter if eventually "earth will" "sort it out", or even if "enough people will die"... as most here wouldn't find it acceptable if things got that bad, and discussion of that is going too far off-topic.

The discussion was about *sustainable* population growth. The situation in 2022 is less sustainable than the situation in 1922, and the reason is the way we use technology. Technology is making progress on its own terms yet worldwide CO2 emissions are not improving.

(In the US we seem to have a certain reduction of CO2 emissions, but I guess mostly because coal is being replaced with natural gas, which is not a long term solution either.)

Regarding the present development in the US: Unfortunately it is 51 Senators who are denying support for renewables, not 49. We may try to be hopeful, but indications are that in November it might get worse in the Senate and/or in the House, and the Supreme Court is making things worse additionally.

Regarding future development (within this century): I happen to agree that eventually economic forces will turn things around, but by that time too likely too much CO2 will already be in the atmosphere and will remain there for hundreds of years, still being too much.

Now, you seem to be trying to argue that all that is not really such a big problem, so I think that is why this side-discussion is now in this thread.

 

[JRP3]

French reactors can't be cooled properly because the rivers are too hot

https://twitter.com/x/status/1548236222589415425

 

[qdeathstar]

The thing is that it doesn't matter if eventually "earth will" "sort it out", or even if "enough people will die"... as most here wouldn't find it acceptable if things got that bad, and discussion of that is going too far off-topic.

Yes, but you are skipping over what I said immediately before. It is unlikely to get that bad because before it gets that bad it will get bad enough that people will start demanding action politically.

Regarding the present development in the US: Unfortunately it is 51 Senators who are denying support for renewables, not 49. We may try to be hopeful, but indications are that in November it might get worse in the Senate and/or in the House, and the Supreme Court is making things worse additionally.

Yes, I forgot about Manchin and Senema voting with the republicans. In the mean time the senate is cranking lifetime appointment democratic judges which should help achieve climate change goals over the long run (despite the issue at the Supreme Court). But really a bill is pass/fail so a bill failing with 49 votes isn’t worse than a bill failing with 40 votes.

Now, you seem to be trying to argue that all that is not really such a big problem, so I think that is why this side-discussion is now in this thread.

It’s a big problem for humans but not a big problem for the earth. Everything will balance itself out and (such that we’ve changed the name from global warming to climate change) sustainable population change will occur irrespective of our actions.

 

[JRP3]

sustainable population change will occur irrespective of our actions.

Rapid climate changes can lead to extinctions.

 

[DrGriz]

Yes, but you are skipping over what I said immediately before. It is unlikely to get that bad because before it gets that bad it will get bad enough that people will start demanding action politically.
...

It’s a big problem for humans but not a big problem for the earth. Everything will balance itself out and (such that we’ve changed the name from global warming to climate change) sustainable population change will occur irrespective of our actions.

You are correct that it will get bad enough that people will demand change. The question is whether or not it is too late by the time that happens. Will there be apocalyptic movie-style wandering bands of gas masked humans scrounging out life until they dig up packets of seeds that they can actually grow? Or will there be such a mass extinction (90% of all species) that humanity will die out for reasons we can contemplate? Or will it be short of that?

Of course, nobody knows.

My own bet is that, no matter what, most humans and their leaders will be too short-sighted and selfish to do the right thing in time to sustain a human-friendly planet.