They only look out about a century, right? — frank

Yeah, are you worried about next century?

Too late for that. By the time this is effectively available, we will have breezed past the moment we could've avoided 1.5 degrees. — Benkei

But limited it to say 2 degrees is better than 2.7+ degrees. 1.5 isn't happening. At least not by 2050. Maybe with serious carbon capture and decarbonization by the end of the century.

So the solution to too much energy in the global climate is a source of abundant cheap energy? Place getting too hot? let's make some tiny little suns to power our air-conditioning. That'll work. — unenlightened

Nuclear energy doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere. It's no more of a concern for climate change than putting up a shit ton of solar panels.

Nuclear energy doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere. It's no more of a concern for climate change than putting up a shit ton of solar panels. — Marchesk

Some more, not no more. Solar panels absorb energy they do not add any energy. Whereas suns, big and little, add energy. They don't add to the greenhouse effect. But the very idea that we can continue our current way of life with such a technological fix is a pernicious lie. We already have millions of climate refugees, and we are already set to lose a great many low-lying cities and a large portion of our arable land. This much is already unavoidable, and dreams of cheap energy are what brought us to this point.

They only look out about a century, right?
— frank

Yeah, are you worried about next century? — Marchesk

No, but a happy outlook for next century is dubious since there's a delay between CO2 emission and the associated effect.

We already have millions of climate refugees, and we are already set to lose a great many low-lying cities and a large portion of our arable land. This much is already unavoidable, and dreams of cheap energy are what brought us to this point. — unenlightened

If we could limit the change to that, it would be a win for humanity. The high projection for change is about 8 degrees.

One way to avoid that would be fusion.

carbon capture — Marchesk

Another unproven technology. We can certainly hope but it's no replacement for actual policy doing what needs to be done with technologies we currently have and fully understand. If halfway through we are handed a tool that makes it easier, that's great but otherwise it has indeed just been an excuse not to do anything.



Mining uranium is incredibly carbon dioxide intensive. Also another fuel that isn't unlimited as well. Not a definitive solution and avoids the necessity to focus on energy efficiency first and replacing energy generation systems.

One way to avoid that would be fusion. — frank

Unfortunately it couldn’t be commercialised in time….

What if the climate hasn't changed, but our instruments and our bodies have?

So, the temperature could be actually a comfortable 25^o C but it feels like 45^o and mercury (the element, not the planet) has become more sensitive to temperature because of which it reads 45^o C instead of the real 25^o. The same goes for other living organisms and other thermosensitive substances.

Contaminated mercury could result in erroneous thermometer readings, oui? Conspiracy theory! :lol:

If [...] would be [...]. — frank

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

It ain't going to happen. Not soon enough , if ever, and it doesn't address the huge environmental problems at all. I'm unsurprised, but disappointed that the same nonsense is being spouted here as we have been hearing for 40 years or so.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-not-the-main-driver-of-madagascar-food-crisis-scientists-find But it is an additional, back-seat driver. Deforestation, overfishing, soil depletion, uncontrolled mining and logging, are all also driving in the same direction, and as people get more desperate, the over-exploitation of whatever resources remain gets worse.

Yes. Nuclear is another excuse to do nothing and carry on as before. Personally, I have no wish to go back to the stone age, but that is where current plans would take us if only they would be implemented. As they are not being implemented at all, the 8 degree rise is starting to look more likely.

Covid has demonstrated how easy it is to reduce fuel usage by simply not flying and driving so much. Onshore wind is the cheapest source of energy, can be built locally and supplemented with tidal, solar, river, geothermal, etc depending on local availability.

But agriculture is heavily dependent on energetically produced fertilisers, and becomes more so as intensive farming destroys the soil. We need to eat less meat and dairy to reduce the pressure to deforest to make room for cattle, and allow less intensive methods that allow carbon capture by the soil. But this will not happen by the action of the invisible hand of capitalism. The invisible hand has shown already that it does not in the least mind exploiting resources to the limit of profit and leaving a wasteland. Slash and burn economics is rife.

Global warming is one aspect of a larger man-made environmental catastrophe created by the industrial revolution, because capitalism has never been properly regulated and forced to account for its environmental costs, which have been off-loaded onto 'the commons' in the form of pollution and environment destruction. Let's call this 'freedom', and wave a flag.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. — unenlightened

:lol:

Onshore wind — unenlightened

:lol: Fart is cheap!

fertilisers — unenlightened

Yep, we have a lot of that (shit)! :grin:

invisible hand — unenlightened

:chin: You mean invisible man! Bang on!

Let's get down to the brass tacks, shall we? We know we have a problem (climate change), a huge one as a matter of fact. We know the aetiology ($CO_2$) as well! The solution, however, isn't as straight forward as we'd have hoped, oui? We're almost completely dependent on fossil fuel for our energy. So, the hard choice we've got to make: Freeze or Fry! :grin:

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

It ain't going to happen. Not soon enough , if ever, and it doesn't address the huge environmental problems at all. I'm unsurprised, but disappointed that the same nonsense is being spouted here as we have been hearing for 40 years or so.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-not-the-main-driver-of-madagascar-food-crisis-scientists-find But it is an additional, back-seat driver. Deforestation, overfishing, soil depletion, uncontrolled mining and logging, are all also driving in the same direction, and as people get more desperate, the over-exploitation of whatever resources remain gets worse. — unenlightened

That's an odd attitude. The Chinese are getting there. .

The rest of the world will catch up. Have a little faith, Peter.

from the article:

These types of tests promise to lead to significant amounts of energy in a few decades since nuclear fusion is so vitally important. — Article

How many is a few? At a minimum 20 years then. Much too late. Climate action needs to happen today and considering the rich west is not willing to give up its way of life, they will continue to squabble about how to account for carbondioxide and make sure there are enough loopholes that on paper they reach their target but in reality don't do anything.

Because that's the foreseeable future, agreement on an accounting method in the next 2—3 years and then another 5 years to conclude the rules aren't working (which is false, they will do exactly what they want then to do, allow them to continue to do what they want). It's the biggest greenwashing scam to come.

How many is a few? At a minimum 20 years then. Much too late. Climate action needs to happen today and considering the rich west is not willing to give up its way of life, they will continue to squabble about how to account for carbondioxide and make sure there are enough loopholes that on paper they reach their target but in reality don't do anything. — Benkei

I agree it's too late to aim for zero anthropogenic global warming. I mentioned before that a significant chunk of accessible hydrocarbons have yet to be burned, and per David Archer, a long range climate modeler, it's what we do with those reserves that decides how bad it will be over the course of the next 10,000 years.

My focus is more on how that will play out. The course of the next few centuries is already set.

My focus is more on how that will play out. The course of the next few centuries is already set. — frank

The way things are going and how the US and Europe are preparing for the next round of bipolar struggle everything might be moot. But Kudos for looking even further, I don't plan beyond my kids' expected death, somewhere around 2100.

Let's get down to the brass tacks, shall we? We know we have a problem (climate change), a huge one as a matter of fact. We know the aetiology (CO2
C
O
2
) as well! The solution, however, isn't as straight forward as we'd have hoped, oui? We're almost completely dependent on fossil fuel for our energy. So, the hard choice we've got to make: Freeze or Fry! :grin: — Agent Smith

And people, groups, nations, world haggle with that.

The way things are going and how the US and Europe are preparing for the next round of bipolar struggle everything might be moot. But Kudos for looking even further, I don't plan beyond my kids' expected death, somewhere around 2100. — Benkei

I've been interested in futurology for a while. In a way it's related to trying to understand history. :nerd:

Interesting stuff.

"Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before—this is not new," said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory - a research organization for international climate scientists providing data for policymakers attempting to address the causes and impacts of climate change. "We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?"

https://apple.news/AkyZDh_aSSBWPbTZv37pusQ

With the war in Ukraine as cover, the fossil fuel industry and the Biden administration are pumping more than ever. It’s almost certain that this month, June, there will be a major Supreme Court decision limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 in West Virginia v. EPA. Lastly, nothing has or will happen in congress, thanks largely to one guy with the most funding from big oil.

All this despite the latest IPCC report, global awareness and desire for action (according to polls, including the US), and evidence all around us — from increased wildfires and draughts to floods, melting icecaps, and rising sea levels.

So, since a minority rules the US, and since they use the idea of “states rights” as cover to legally dismantle any action on a national level (including abortion) through the Supreme Court and have all but incapacitated congress, perhaps this is even more the time to realize that politics is indeed local. That not only is there little we can do about national politics, but that focusing on your state and local level is the way to go and always has been anyway.

I wonder if we see more grassroots participation in this decade?

NY Times piece about the upcoming Supreme Court ruling. Referenced above.

I was talking to an ancient old woman, and I was asking how they dealt with heat in the summer when she was young. She first said it's hotter now than it was. That's actually not true where she lives. The globe has gotten hotter in the last 100 years, but her area hasn't tracked that change.

But then she said that nobody thought much about it. She said if you get used to heat and humidity, you don't notice it as much. She said people use air conditioning because they don't get used to it, so they think they need the cooler temperature. But also, they had shade trees over their houses and that keeps the inside of the house cooler.

I asked if her mother ever complained about the heat, and she chuckled and said her mother never complained about anything.

So that's one facet of the lifestyle many of us have now. We think we need air conditioning. Another issue is food. If you walk through a grocery store in the US, you'll see a totally unnecessary food extravaganza. The quantity of extruded carbohydrates people eat promotes obesity and diabetes. They eat it because it's easy to get and again, they think they need it.

In the wild, humans don't have to eat everyday. You can go a few days without food, and if you do, you'll notice the hunger goes away on the third day. This is normal. Eating giant amounts of calories constantly is not.

Another factor is travel. Cities are laid out to accommodate cars, so people really can't do their thing on a bike.

I mention these things just to call attention to the hidden dimension of CO² emissions: the wildly extravagant lives we lead, thinking all the while that this is just average.

mention these things just to call attention to the hidden dimension of CO² emissions: the wildly extravagant lives we lead, thinking all the while that this is just average. — Tate

Yes, the United States is the leader of emissions and is absurd on waste. They’re also the most powerful force against climate action.

Ridiculously stupid— but that’s the state of the world.

My point was that it's not just somebody else's fault. If you're adapted to an American lifestyle, the problem is you.

Interesting and educational, thanks!

I'm probably not as ancient as your old woman, but when I was growing up (memories from the early 1950s) we did not have air conditioning or even window fans. We were not wretched from heat. Maybe it wasn't as hot back then. There were lots of shade trees in the small town.

We went swimming in a meandering stream which was shared by cattle. Not very clean. We didn't get sick.

Humans don't have to eat everyday — Tate

They don't have to eat every day, but I bet we have preferred to eat every day for a very long time.

No doubt about it, though, most people in the industrialized world are eating too much of the wrong kind of food. A supermarket is a smorgasbord of not very healthy food. Why? Because food manufacturers are not public health agencies. Besides, a lot of people like the crap that is on offer. The crap also comes in interesting novel forms which people also like. There are one or two items of crap that I like to eat--crunchy, chewy, salty, spicy, greasy, sweet creations from the laboratories of Conagra and Multifoods. Carrots and cabbage are healthier than Doritos and Hagen Daz, but one can stand only so much whole grain, NGO, organic, high-fructose-free minimally processed whole earth clunky goodness. .

I'm probably not as ancient as your old woman, but when I was growing up (memories from the early 1950s) we did not have air conditioning or even window fans. We were not wretched from heat. Maybe it wasn't as hot back then. There were lots of shade trees in the small town.

We went swimming in a meandering stream which was shared by cattle. Not very clean. We didn't get sick. — Bitter Crank

Do older people have a harder time dealing with heat? Just wondering.

I think we would all adapt pretty quickly if air conditioning disappeared. It's just that no one is going to give it up until they have to.

We need a new energy source. That's the only solution from where we are now. Do you agree?

Do older people have a harder time dealing with heat? Just wondering. — Tate

In general, yes. We don't respond as quickly to sudden changes in temperature as younger people. Medicines and medical conditions may make it more difficult for agéd bodies to lose heat. Cognitive decline can interfere with an individual's taking care of themselves, so that they may not be able to execute a cooling strategy.

A fan in a hot apartment won't cool a person very much. If humidity and temperature are high enough, (90º - 95º F, with very high humidity) sweating no longer works as a cooling mechanism and heat stroke and death may follow. (This is true for everyone, not just old people)

Yes, people have gotten along without air conditioning in very hot conditions. This is especially true where temperatures are high while humidity is low. Sweating in hot - arid environments works quite well. Urban environments present extra problems. Apartment buildings without AC can turn into solar ovens, and the surrounding paved environment aggravates the problem.

Minnesota had a severe hot drought in the summer of 1988. During some nights the temperature remained in the upper 90s. Because of the drought, the hot air was very dry and thus the heat was much more tolerable. I was doing street outreach in Minneapolis at that time, and spent a lot of time on bicycle, without suffering. The nights, on the other hand, were wonderful -- warm, dry, bug free, clear skies. It was hell for agriculture but great for some of us.

During the 2003 heatwave in Europe, nearly 70,000 people died from heat, many of them elderly Many of the elderly's families were away on vacation, and no one was doing wellness checks on the old folks. Most of the dead lived in apartments without AC. American cities have also seen spikes in heat related deaths.

The solution isn't to put AC in every apartment. Most heat-waves are of relatively short duration. Rather, the solution is to make sure vulnerable people have a way of getting to cooling centers so their core temperatures don't reach fatal levels.

Rather, the solution is to make sure vulnerable people have a way of getting to cooling centers so their core temperatures don't reach fatal levels. — Bitter Crank

I see. Being less dependent on AC would require more social integration, or socialized medicine.

Exxon says every new passenger car sold in 2040 will be electric .

This doesn't exactly address climate change because it just means a heavier load on the grid.

I does centralize the CO² output, though. That means when the grid is powered by fusion, say, cars will also be powered with it.

This "Supreme Court" want everybody to die:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-limits-environmental-protection-agencys-authority-11656598034?mod=hp_lead_pos1

Fuck conservatives.