Climate change, if not dealt with properly, has the potential to become a problem we definitely could do without. — ChatteringMonkey
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. — 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? — 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. — TheMadFool
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
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. — 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. — ChatteringMonkey
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
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
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
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
And apparently it's not even close to an existential risk, even in worst case scenario — ChatteringMonkey
It's nothing like an astroid hitting the earth where we either prevent the impact or die immediately — ChatteringMonkey
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
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. —
It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey
Based on what we understand now, this is true. — frank
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
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
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
Earth cooling down is what I think'll happen. — TheMadFool
So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh?
— Xtrix
Guess what happens if the AMOC shuts down. — frank
Definitely. But we'll have to transition to another energy source sooner or later. There's a limited amount of hydrocarbons to burn. — frank
(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.
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
It's kind of obvious that you don't know much about this and other features of climate change. — frank
You looked at decline. I said shutdown. — frank
IPPC said there’s almost no chance that there’s a complete shutdown — Xtrix
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
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
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
(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.
(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.”
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.
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.