Climate change, if not dealt with properly, has the potential to become a problem we definitely could do without. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree. I spent a while immersed in the Bronze Age collapse, which was probably a result of natural disasters, war, and civil unrest.

In a short amount of time, two cultures just disappeared. No one factor would have brought the bronze age down. It was the combination of forces.

So the troubled times ahead will have climate change amplifying whatever stresses are native to the situation.

Extreme weather in the form of cold, for a month, 'globally' probably is very unlikely in a global warming scenario. — ChatteringMonkey

How do you know that? A lot of that liquid water, a predicted outcome of global warming, means more clouds, more clouds means less sun, less sun means (more) cooling. As a case in point, it's early July, peak summer, where I am and I picked up a cool idiom a coupla months ago - "it'll be a cold day in July when x happens" - and it feels like mid-September, coldish. Who's to blame? Thick cloud cover over the week with mild rain. Global warming is going to, heat up the oceans, and all that water will eventually end up as a vast blanket of clouds covering the skies from pole to pole. No prizes for guessing what happens next.

How do you know that? A lot of that liquid water, a predicted outcome of global warming, means more clouds, more clouds means less sun, less sun means (more) cooling. As a case in point, it's early July, peak summer, where I am and I picked up a cool idiom a coupla months ago - "it'll be a cold day in July when x happens" - and it feels like mid-September, coldish. Who's to blame? Thick cloud cover over the week with mild rain. Global warming is going to, heat up the oceans, and all that water will eventually end up as a vast blanket of clouds covering the skies from pole to pole. No prizes for guessing what happens next. — TheMadFool

Greenhouse gasses trap heat, and causes global warming. This is well documented, from the geological record, and follows from the physics of how light and heat radiation interacts with greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

As for the cloud scenario, Venus is covered in a thick blanket of clouds... should be freezing cold over there then, right?

Greenhouse gasses trap heat, and causes global warming. This is well documented, from the geological record, and follows from the physics of how light and heat radiation interacts with greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

As for the cloud scenario, Venus is covered in a thick blanket of clouds... should be freezing cold over there then, right? — ChatteringMonkey

That's a non sequitur - Venus is Venus, Earth is Earth. Also, look up Year Without A Summer - volcanic ash clouds over the entire earth caused global temperatures to nosedive to winter levels. Global "warming" is going to blot out the sun with clouds at an even grander scale. Earth cooling down is what I think'll happen.

That's a non sequitur - Venus is Venus, Earth is Earth. Also, look up Year Without A Summer - volcanic ash clouds over the entire earth caused global temperatures to nosedive to winter levels. Global "warming" is going to blot out the sun with clouds at an even grander scale. Earth cooling down is what I think'll happen. — TheMadFool

This is a non sequitur, volcanic ash is volcanic ash and not clouds and a lot of greenhouse gasses.

Anyway, read up on some science TheMadFool, you seem to be missing the basics.

I agree. I spent a while immersed in the Bronze Age collapse, which was probably a result of natural disasters, war, and civil unrest.

In a short amount of time, two cultures just disappeared. No one factor would have brought the bronze age down. It was the combination of forces.

So the troubled times ahead will have climate change amplifying whatever stresses are native to the situation. — frank

Yet the Bronze Age collapse didn't mean that humans became extinct. The wording which many here use of an "existential" threat in my view shouldn't taken literally as an extinction event of the human race. Earth has had mass extinction events and some say that the change that now species are dying at such rate that one can say that this is a mass extinction event. However the collapse of our present way of life is something totally different from the extinction of the human race. There never has been such an adaptive animal as us, so the idea that climate change will doom us is in my view an exaggeration.

What happens to our current society is another thing. Yet even if that "collapses", it really doesn't mean an existential danger to the human race.

And to make this point, notice that we are living through one of the worst pandemics which was just a few years ago a hypothetical scenario, and we have adapted.

This is a non sequitur, volcanic ash is volcanic ash and not clouds and a lot of greenhouse gasses. — ChatteringMonkey

Ash/clouds, the effect is the same - no sunshine! Venus is closer to the sun by the way, that must surely mean something.

Anyway, read up on some science TheMadFool, you seem to be missing the basics.[/quote]

Good advice. Thanks a million!

Ash/clouds, the effect is the same - no sunshine! Venus is closer to the sun by the way, that must surely mean something. — TheMadFool

It matters what kind of molecules the stuff in the atmosphere is made of. They don't all have the same effect on light coming in and energy radiating out. Some reflect light coming in, like volcanic ash, some trap infrared energy bouncing back from the earth, like greenhouse gasses...

The difference in distance between the earth and Venus matters, but doesn't account for the almost 500 degrees Celsius difference.

It matters what kind of molecules the stuff in the atmosphere is made of. They don't all have the same effect on light coming in and energy radiating out. Some reflect light coming in, like volcanic ash, some trap infrared energy bouncing back from the earth, like greenhouse gasses...

The difference in distance between the earth and Venus matters, but doesn't account for the almost 500 degrees Celsius difference. — ChatteringMonkey

Volcanic ash cloud -> Cold (1815 - 1816)
Overcast skies -> Cold

:chin:

Yet the Bronze Age collapse didn't mean that humans became extinct. The wording which many here use of an "existential" threat in my view shouldn't taken literally as an extinction event of the human race. — ssu

It turns out to be really difficult to get that message across, though.

Earth has had mass extinction events and some say that the change that now species are dying at such rate that one can say that this is a mass extinction event. — ssu

High speed dying doesn't make a mass extinction, though. Some essential part of the Earth's ecosystems has to break down for that. Extinction events are also usually cold, due to vulcanism or depressed greenhouse effect.

However the collapse of our present way of life is something totally different from the extinction of the human race. There never has been such an adaptive animal as us, so the idea that climate change will doom us is in my view an exaggeration. — ssu

Definitely. But we'll have to transition to another energy source sooner or later. There's a limited amount of hydrocarbons to burn.

Yet the Bronze Age collapse didn't mean that humans became extinct. The wording which many here use of an "existential" threat in my view shouldn't taken literally as an extinction event of the human race. — ssu

Tbf an infrastructural collapse would be somewhat more impactful. I agree, it wouldn't likely wipe out every human. We're omnivores: even if the bees die out, we'll find something to eat and we'll have a lot more time to fuck when there's no on-demand TV. I think the fear is more end-of-civilisation.

Although there will be ample beef in the early days. If we stockpile on pinto beans, rice, salsa verde and Monterey Jack cheese we'll have some good living for a few years before the cannibal apocalypse I reckon.

And apparently it's not even close to an existential risk, even in worst case scenario — ChatteringMonkey

Then you simply aren't paying attention.

It's nothing like an astroid hitting the earth where we either prevent the impact or die immediately — ChatteringMonkey

It's very much like an asteroid hurling towards earth. Not the same, of course. But regardless, you completely missed the point. The point was that no one, including myself, is saying we're doomed.

And sure he leaves out a whole lot, but science does seem to support the things that he does say. — ChatteringMonkey

It's not an existential threat, not even close. — ChatteringMonkey

It is an existential threat, not simply "close."

You can go on comforting yourself with the idea that tipping points and feedback loops are improbable, or whatever else you'd like. But it's pure irrationality, honestly. If the chances of an existential threat were 0.1%, it'd still be absurd to not take that seriously.

Again, it's worth reading about this. Tell these authors that it's "not even close."

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future

Scientists Warn Humanity in Denial of Looming 'Collapse of Civilization as We Know It'

Top scientists warn of 'ghastly future of mass extinction' and climate disruption

The 17 experts, including Prof Paul Ehrlich from Stanford University, author of The Population Bomb, and scientists from Mexico, Australia and the US, say the planet is in a much worse state than most people – even scientists – understood.

“The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms – including humanity – is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts,” they write in a report in Frontiers in Conservation Science which references more than 150 studies detailing the world’s major environmental challenges. —

Pretty thorough interview with Will Steffen: here.

If you're really going solely by whether it wipes out every last human on the face of the planet, then I suppose nuclear weapons aren't an existential threat either. Perhaps the aforementioned asteroid (depending on the size) isn't an existential threat.

So it'll only be a radically changed, hell-like earth. But we'll survive in some capacity -- so we can't call it "existential." If you're somehow comforted by that, you're welcome.

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey

Based on what we understand now, this is true. — frank

You don't know what you're talking about. It's "true" in the sense that you simply refuse to read anything about it. I've provided plenty of sources. The rest is your business.



Very true.

My question: So, those who claim that global warming/climate change is a fact are claiming if it suddenly starts snowing all over the world, temperatures drop below freezing, rivers and lakes in the tropics freeze over, it's all caused by global "warming"? :chin: — TheMadFool

When the climate changes this rapidly (and the issue is the rate of change), it disrupts all kinds of cycles we've been used to for thousands of years. This means disruptions in the weather, as well -- more extreme swings in rainfall, for example. So we can have flooding and drought happen at the same time within the same country. Likewise, it can impact how cold it gets in winter. We saw Texas freeze over this year, for example. Some of that is related to the changing climate, yes. That doesn't mean we're heading for an ice age. We're heading in the opposite direction.

Remember climate change is about extremes - that cuts both ways (h9t or cold). Ergo, global warming can lead to global cooling. Paradox or climate change is a hoax, a well-orchestrated one. — TheMadFool

While extreme cold events may take place as part of an overall disruption, the direction we're going is warming, not cooling. That's why the global temperature average keeps increasing, not decreasing.

Is the "climate change is a hoax" a joke?

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey
Really? It certainly is for some people and some nations. Killed some, and soon will make some uninhabitable. Of course, those aren't the important people, so voila, no existential threat! — tim wood

Good point.

If we're going to split hairs about the word "existential," then how about instead of meaning the "human species" we mean the people of Bangladesh? What about them? Or India? Or some of the Polynesian islands? Tell those people it's not "existential."

Earth cooling down is what I think'll happen. — TheMadFool

Okay, so no need to answer my question above -- apparently it wasn't a joke.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh? Guess we can tell those idiots who've studied this carefully all their lives that they're wasting their time -- some guy on the Internet has figured it out from perusing the literature and using his keen philosophical powers.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh? — Xtrix

Guess what happens if the AMOC shuts down.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh?
— Xtrix

Guess what happens if the AMOC shuts down. — frank

Yes, and you've definitely shown yourself to be someone who can tell us.

For those interested in the actual science:

"In climate model simulations of future climate change, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is projected to decline. However, the impacts of this decline, relative to other changes, remain to be identified. Here we address this problem by analyzing 30 idealized abrupt-4xCO2 climate model simulations. We find that in models with larger AMOC decline, there is a minimum warming in the North Atlantic, a southward displacement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone, and a poleward shift of the mid-latitude jet. The changes in the models with smaller AMOC decline are drastically different: there is a relatively larger warming in the North Atlantic, the precipitation response exhibits a wet-get-wetter, dry-get-drier pattern, and there are smaller displacements of the mid-latitude jet. Our study indicates that the AMOC is a major source of inter-model uncertainty, and continued observational efforts are needed to constrain the AMOC response in future climate change."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24015-w

How odd that it's not as simplistic as Frank would like to believe.

You looked at decline. I said shutdown.

Look up Younger Dryas. That's what happened the last time it stopped.

It's kind of obvious that you don't know much about this and other features of climate change. If you can manage to get your ego under control, we'll all forgive that. We don't care. If you continue, you're just making a fool of yourself. Just a heads up.

Definitely. But we'll have to transition to another energy source sooner or later. There's a limited amount of hydrocarbons to burn. — frank

Limited yes, but never forget the price mechanism: with higher price, more costly production methods and resources become profitable. And here is where the "feelgood" narrative of wishful high minded thinking stumbles upon ignorance of the actual reality. It is far too easy for the high minded to simply declare that we have to consume less.

The best example in my view are the hostile attitudes towards nuclear energy, a zero emissions energy resource. Countries that have made decisions either to go off or radically reduce nuclear energy have either simply not kept their promises (Sweden) or then built coal plants (Japan) or resorted to export energy typically from coal plants (Germany). Japan, where nobody did die in the Fukushima accident (but many thousands in the actual Tsunami in 2011) just shows how illogical energy policy can be:

(Feb 5th, 2020 the NY Times) It is one unintended consequence of the Fukushima nuclear disaster almost a decade ago, which forced Japan to all but close its nuclear power program. Japan now plans to build as many as 22 new coal-burning power plants — one of the dirtiest sources of electricity — at 17 different sites in the next five years, just at a time when the world needs to slash carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming.

Electricity production by fossil fuels has increased in Japan:

Okay, so no need to answer my question above -- apparently it wasn't a joke.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh? Guess we can tell those idiots who've studied this carefully all their lives that they're wasting their time -- some guy on the Internet has figured it out from perusing the literature and using his keen philosophical powers. — Xtrix

:rofl: I was only trying to explore alternative pathways to how global warming could eventually pan out. Cooling seemed plausible.

It's kind of obvious that you don't know much about this and other features of climate change. — frank

:lol: Truly out of Trump’s playbook: look like a complete buffoon, then simply pretend like you’re a very stable genius. Well done. You’re right: you’ve shown multiple times just how knowledgeable you are about climate science.

Whatever I know about climate change, this much I’m clear on: I know more about it than you. Can’t speak for others.

You looked at decline. I said shutdown. — frank

Which is so idiotic I didn’t think it was serious. That’s my fault for thinking you were making more sense than you were. I’ll work on that.

As the IPCC says— which, given your climate expertise you must know— there’s almost no chance that there’s a complete shutdown. Even if there were, we don’t know what would happen.

But please keep lecturing— so far you’ve earned that right.

Existential threat for some and not all I suppose. Even on the optimistic targets Miami is still going to be underwater by 2050. It would be foolish to think it isn’t existential

CAR-b-ON dioxide is the culprit.

IPPC said there’s almost no chance that there’s a complete shutdown — Xtrix

I think they just say "unlikely” in the near future. It's on the table because the conditions for it are developing now.

It wouldn't kill off our species, but that kind of double shock would make maintaining civilization tricky. As soon as people adapted to the cold NH, it would reverse and get hotter than before. It would cause mass migrations not once, but twice in a relatively short time.

The best example in my view are the hostile attitudes towards nuclear energy, a zero emissions energy resource. Countries that have made decisions either to go off or radically reduce nuclear energy have either simply not kept their promises (Sweden) or then built coal plants (Japan) or resorted to export energy typically from coal plants (Germany). Japan, where nobody did die in the Fukushima accident (but many thousands in the actual Tsunami in 2011) just shows how illogical energy policy can be: — ssu

I'd be curious to know what kind of debate there was in Japan before they decided to build a bunch of coal burning plants.

Miami is still going to be underwater by 2050 — Albero

I think most people are ok with that.

You can go on comforting yourself with the idea that tipping points and feedback loops are improbable, or whatever else you'd like. But it's pure irrationality, honestly. If the chances of an existential threat were 0.1%, it'd still be absurd to not take that seriously. — Xtrix

If you're really going solely by whether it wipes out every last human on the face of the planet, then I suppose nuclear weapons aren't an existential threat either. Perhaps the aforementioned asteroid (depending on the size) isn't an existential threat.

So it'll only be a radically changed, hell-like earth. But we'll survive in some capacity -- so we can't call it "existential." If you're somehow comforted by that, you're welcome. — Xtrix

You keep saying I want to comfort myself by not calling it an existential threat, but that was never my intention. At every opportunity I said it was going to be very bad... but not an existential threat. I agree that we shouldn't be comforting ourselves by underestimating the risk or ignoring small risks with grave consequences, but at the same time we shouldn't overstate how bad it's going to be either, because really it's bad enough as it is.

Anyway I think we actually agree for the most part, just not on the way we want to communicate the issue. I think you lose credibility by overstating the case and people get desensitized by continual doomsaying (i.e. the boy cried wolf), while you seem to think we need to spur people into action by putting it into the strongest of terms. Maybe this is a result of you living in the US and me being in Europe. Most here, except maybe for that stubborn minority that you'll never reach anyway, seem well aware of the dangers of climate change, while in the US there's probably more ignorance and apathy about the issue still.

And I think accurate assessment of risks matters, for the kind of measures we are willing to take. If it really were an impending existential threat or even "just" a civilization collapsing threat, a la a large asteroid about to impact, we should we willing to contemplate the most drastic of measure, like shutting down all fossil fuels and slaughtering all livestock overnight, pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, declaring war on nations that aren't complying with zero-emissions etc... Some measure would be more or less disruptive for our societies. That's the question for me.... not should we do something about it, but how far and how fast should we be willing to go? How much disruption to current societies do the risks warrant?

I'd be curious to know what kind of debate there was in Japan before they decided to build a bunch of coal burning plants. — frank

Actually now they are coming to grasp how utterly stupid this is.

(Bloomberg, April 2021) A joint venture in Japan has scrapped plans for a coal-fired power plant, leaving the country with no new construction on the horizon as companies drop the dirty fuel amid tighter emissions rules and strong growth outlook for renewables.

Kansai Electric Power Co. and Marubeni Corp. won’t move forward with a 1.3 gigawatt coal power project in Akita prefecture that was slated to begin operations in 2024, a unit of Kansai Electric said Tuesday.

The firms decided to cancel the project due to the government’s tighter environmental rules and banks curbing financing for carbon-intensive projects, the Nikkei reported ahead of the announcement. The companies are considering building a cleaner biomass facility instead, the Nikkei said.

While there are still several coal projects currently under construction, Japan has no plans for additional new plants, according to BloombergNEF. A 1.2 gigawatt coal project in Yamaguchi prefecture was also canned earlier this month as electricity demand was expected to remain flat, while renewable energy expands.

So just several coal plants are under construction. But they do also have two nuclear power plant under construction. Here's how nuclear energy is being built (stats by IAEA):


Country Number of Reactors_____ Total Net Electrical Capacity [MW]
ARGENTINA 1 ________________ 25
BANGLADESH 2 ________________ 2160
BELARUS 1 ________________ 1110
BRAZIL 1 ________________ 1340
CHINA 13 ________________ 12565
FINLAND 1 ________________ 1600
FRANCE 1 ________________ 1630
INDIA 6 ________________ 4194
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 1 ___ 974
JAPAN 2 ________________ 2653
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 4 __________ 5360
PAKISTAN 1 ________________ 1014
RUSSIA 3 ________________ 3459
SLOVAKIA 2 ________________ 880
TURKEY 3 ________________ 3342
UKRAINE 2 ________________ 2070
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 3 _______ 4035
UNITED KINGDOM 2 ________ 3260
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2___ 2234

With that, let's compare that above to coal plants being under construction.

(The Guardian, June 2021) Five Asian countries are jeopardising global climate ambitions by investing in 80% of the world’s planned new coal plants, according to a report.

Carbon Tracker, a financial thinktank, has found that China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam plan to build more than 600 coal power units, even though renewable energy is cheaper than most new coal plants.

The investments in one of the most environmentally damaging sources of energy could generate a total of 300 gigawatts of energy – enough to power the UK more than three times over – despite calls from climate experts at the UN for all new coal plants to be cancelled.

Catharina Hillenbrand von der Neyen, the author of the report, said: “These last bastions of coal power are swimming against the tide, when renewables offer a cheaper solution that supports global climate targets. Investors should steer clear of new coal projects, many of which are likely to generate negative returns from the outset.”

So just five Asian countries are building over 600 coal plants with over 300 gigawats (300 000 MW), while only 51 nuclear power plants are built producing under 54 gigawats of power.

Anyway, there is an very interesting and eye opening Global Coal Plant Tracker , which I advise to people to look at. A lot of info on coal plants!

(Here's what it looks like:)

Catharina Hillenbrand von der Neyen, the author of the report, said: “These last bastions of coal power are swimming against the tide, when renewables offer a cheaper solution that supports global climate targets.

This make no sense at all, why are they doing this? Even if they don't give a damn about effects on climate change, you'd think they choose the cheaper option.

Anyway, there is an very interesting and eye opening Global Coal Plant Tracker , which I advise to people to look at. A lot of info on coal plants! — ssu

Nice.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree

I couldn't quite get a clear reason why they'd go with coal over renewables, but

- Economic growth of 6% a year is still far and above the prime directive
- Those decisions apparently depend on decentralized authorities for a large part and/or the central party isn't all that serious about cutting emissions
- Coal magnates have a lot of influence
- There are some practical/technical reason renewables can't supply their demand for energy?
- They want to use it as leverage in geopolitical negotiations (really?)

Anyway, the official line is that they will keep ramping it up until somewhere in the beginning of the 2030, and then reduce it slowly it to reach neutrality in 2060. If that's the official line, one should what... take the square root of that to gauge their real intentions?

This really won't do it, will it, considering they are good for a third of global emissions?

You keep saying I want to comfort myself by not calling it an existential threat, but that was never my intention. At every opportunity I said it was going to be very bad... but not an existential threat. I agree that we shouldn't be comforting ourselves by underestimating the risk or ignoring small risks with grave consequences, but at the same time we shouldn't overstate how bad it's going to be either, because really it's bad enough as it is. — ChatteringMonkey

Have it your way. So any time I say "existential" just translate that as "very, very bad." Still, even if there's a small chance that it's existential -- as you said, we should be taking that very seriously. That was my only point. I can't see how that doesn't motivate people more, unless it gets interpreted as "we're all doomed," which isn't the case.

Anyway I think we actually agree for the most part, just not on the way we want to communicate the issue. I think you lose credibility by overstating the case and people get desensitized by continual doomsaying (i.e. the boy cried wolf), while you seem to think we need to spur people into action by putting it into the strongest of terms. — ChatteringMonkey

You could be right in the way it's communicated -- I have no way of knowing. But I do think the hothouse earth scenarios are not talked about nearly enough. Will Steffen's version, not the media saying the world's going to end in 10 years or something ridiculous. That indeed is foolish, not because it's too shocking but because it isn't true.

That we could reach tipping points that run out of control is a possibility, and a serious one which we should consider.

And I think accurate assessment of risks matters, for the kind of measures we are willing to take. If it really were an impending existential threat or even "just" a civilization collapsing threat, a la a large asteroid about to impact, we should we willing to contemplate the most drastic of measure, like shutting down all fossil fuels and slaughtering all livestock overnight, pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, declaring war on nations that aren't complying with zero-emissions etc... Some measure would be more or less disruptive for our societies. That's the question for me.... not should we do something about it, but how far and how fast should we be willing to go? How much disruption to current societies do the risks warrant? — ChatteringMonkey

If people understood the risks, I think we should be disrupting the world much more than the pandemic did. But even if we shut things down, as the pandemic did, or something on that level, I think that would probably be more than enough to solve this issue. We don't even need that extreme level, though -- there are sensible solutions which we have right now. The problem is political will -- which isn't coming from the population, unfortunately. That's a failure in education, a success for propaganda, a failure of the media, and a major failure of corporate America, who'd rather sell the future than do anything right now about this issue.