I got ChatGPT 4o to draw a graph of Solar Energy Potential (kWh/m^2 per day) against latitude.



It appears that there is a very large difference in Solar Energy Potential between summer and winter for latitudes that are not close to the equator.

How will countries that depend on solar energy cope with this situation?

The human race — frank

Morals are subjective. Not everybody shares your views.

The moral issue is about having the power to help our descendants, but failing to act on their behalves. — frank

Acting to help our descendants has costs for us. It also has possible benefits for us. How far should we go to help our descendants. Should we go and live in caves so that our descendants can have a better life? The issue seems to one of compromise, and there will be a spectrum of opinions.

I have said before that I think that most people are inherently selfish. That isn't compatible with helping our descendants.

The moral issue I'm talking about has little to do with you in particular. — frank

Then who does the moral issue that you are talking about apply to?

The moral issue is about having the power to help our descendants, but failing to act on their behalves. — frank

Do I have a moral duty to help YOUR descendants?

I read the article you linked. My problem with the analysis that it fails to cast any blame at those who USE fossil fuels. — Relativist

I agree that those who USE fossil fuels should be held to account. They are the ones who create the demand for fossil fuels. The Oil companies supply fossil fuels to meet the demand.

But it’s similar to cigarette smoking and tobacco companies. Sure, one perspective puts most of the responsibility on the consumer — no one is forcing you to smoke. But that ignores a lot as well. — Mikie

Blaming Oil companies for supplying fossil fuels is like overweight people blaming supermarkets for supplying food. The overweight people are trying to avoid their personal responsibility.

Most living organisms on earth, other than the dinosaurs and the ones we're getting rid of, either adapt to their environment and survive, or maladapt and perish. — alleybear

What if an organism could change the environment? They could change the environment to allow themselves to survive. Organisms are part of the environment, not separate from it.

All of us are part of this evolutionary movement in deciding intelligent or ignorant responses. — alleybear

Evolution is a story that is read backwards. You don't know exactly what will happen in the future. An organism can try to predict the future but whether a decision is "intelligent" or "ignorant" can not be told in advance. For example, is creating AI an "intelligent" or "ignorant" decision?

It is totally unreasonable and vacuous. — unenlightened

You obviously think that most people are "totally unreasonable and vacuous".

Thank goodness we have you to guide us.  :grin:

Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change?

You ought to believe what is reasonable to believe, not what is comfortable to believe. — unenlightened

There is so much exaggeration and hype about climate change that it is hard to know what is reasonable to believe. When the statements from scientists show an exponential trend towards doom, gloom, and catastrophe it is hard for many people to take them seriously. Given that there is a lot of uncertainty about what will happen with climate change many people feel that it is reasonable to avoid taking drastic measures.

because it is really hard to actually understand viscerally how very fucked we all are unless we change our morals and start acting on them. — unenlightened

It is not just a question of morals. Many people hold beliefs which justify them doing nothing. You need to change these beliefs before it becomes a moral issue.

12% of Americans agree with the statement “it’s already too late to do anything about global warming,” while many more (63%) disagree.

47% of Americans agree with the statement “the actions of a single individual won’t make any difference in global warming,” while 53% disagree.

49% of Americans agree with the statement “new technologies can solve global warming without individuals having to make big changes in their lives,” while 50% disagree.

It's like this aversion for any kind of power-structure is so deeply routed in our culture, that we'd rather have the world end, before we allow some concentration of power that could actually do something. — ChatteringMonkey

Would you rather be a big fish in a small pond, or a small fish in a big pond?

you would need something to overcome those inclinations, i.e. binding supra-national agreement. — ChatteringMonkey

In other words, we are doomed.  :death: :death: :death:

Rather we have to rely on our already evolved 'cooperative' inclinations. — unenlightened

In other words, we are doomed.  :death: :death: :death:

Really? What safety issues exactly? — Benkei

There are many places on the internet where the dangers and safety issues of fusion power are discussed.

This is a very detailed one:
Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
By Daniel Jassby
https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be
Daniel Jassby was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University.

Daniel Jassby points out that (as well as all of the other problems):

Nuclear weapons proliferation. The open or clandestine production of plutonium 239 is possible in a fusion reactor simply by placing natural or depleted uranium oxide at any location where neutrons of any energy are flying about. The ocean of slowing-down neutrons that results from scattering of the streaming fusion neutrons on the reaction vessel permeates every nook and cranny of the reactor interior, including appendages to the reaction vessel. Slower neutrons will be readily soaked up by uranium 238, whose cross section for neutron absorption increases with decreasing neutron energy. — Daniel Jassby

If you do a Google search for "fusion power" then the AI overview includes the following

Neutron Radiation:
Fusion reactions produce high-energy neutrons that can damage materials, leading to swelling, embrittlement, and fatigue in reactor components.

Radioactive Waste:
Fusion reactors, while producing less radioactive waste than fission reactors, still generate radioactive materials, including tritium, which requires careful handling and disposal.

Tritium Handling and Leakage:
Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is a key fuel for fusion, but its handling and potential leakage pose significant safety concerns.
Daniel Jassby's article says:
Tritium will be dispersed on the surfaces of the reaction vessel, particle injectors, pumping ducts, and other appendages. Corrosion in the heat exchange system, or a breach in the reactor vacuum ducts could result in the release of radioactive tritium into the atmosphere or local water resources. Tritium exchanges with hydrogen to produce tritiated water, which is biologically hazardous. The release of even tiny amounts of radioactive tritium from fission reactors into groundwater causes public consternation.

Gamma Radiation:
Fusion reactions also produce gamma radiation, which, combined with neutron radiation, can be dangerously high

Radioactive Waste Disposal:
While fusion waste is generally considered lower-level than fission waste, it still requires safe and long-term disposal.

Potential for Accidents:
Although fusion is not based on a chain reaction like fission, accidents involving the fusion reactor's containment or materials could still lead to radioactive releases.

Benkei: Deleted for the misleading crap it was.

What about fusion power? — frank

I think that fusion power sounds very promising. The big problems are getting it to work and getting it to work safely.

If you want a downfall then I would say that "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is too good to be true".  :grin:

but I guess you are not an alarmist — javi2541997

You are correct, I am not an alarmist.

I believe in climate change but I don't believe that it will be as bad as many people claim. You may have heard the phrase "A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on". People who are pessimistic about climate change blame climate change for every bad thing that happens. I can only debate one issue at a time.

It seems to me that many people who are pessimistic about climate change are only aware of recent history. They don't bother looking further back in time because they just want to believe the worst. Have a look at this post about North American boreal forests burning much more 150 years ago than they do today. This contradicts the common beliefs held about fires in North American boreal forests.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/15317/agree-to-disagree

History is important. If you don't know history it is as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, anybody up there in a position of power can tell you anything, and you have no way of checking up on it. — Howard Zinn

That would be my fecund mind. I thought it was obviously a joke. — BC

I do find that people who are alarmed about climate change make a lot of "jokes" which can't be backed up with evidence.

FFS, learn how it works! — Vera Mont

Did you read the article from Advanced Science News?

Understanding the impact of climate change on sub-arctic groundwater
- As permafrost thaws, the potential for groundwater storage may increase, increasing the possibility of using groundwater as a resource.
- 99% of domestic use water in the Yukon is from groundwater, and approximately half of Alaskan residents rely on groundwater for their drinking water.
- There are also many advantages; it is drought resistant, often has lower treatment costs, and can be pumped where needed.

That sounds a bit like positive news to me.

Perhaps you should read this article to "learn how it works" with boreal fires in Canada.

https://www.preventionweb.net/news/forest-fires-north-americas-boreal-forests-are-burning-lot-less-150-years-ago

Here are some highlights:
- North American boreal forests burned much more 150 years ago than they do today. In the earliest period covered by our data, between 1700 and 1850, the annual area burned was between two and more than 10 times greater than what has been observed over the past 40 years.
- [fires have] a strong influence on ecosystems, but not necessarily negative
- On the other hand, fires have always been part of forests, and are sometimes even essential to their ecological functioning. Most of the time, the burned landscape will gradually give way to vigorous young trees, which grow into a mature forest in some 50 to 100 years. Some tree species are even dependent on fire to regenerate and as a result, maintain themselves.
- Many animal species are also fond of burned forests. Charred tree trunks provide food for certain insect species, such as the black long-horned beetle. Insects in turn provide abundant food for birds, like black-backed woodpeckers, which use snags (dead standing trees whose roots are still anchored to the ground) to nest.

Did you know about that? Have you learnt anything?

200,000 people were suffering from hot weather. Then they took shelter in aggressively air-conditioned offices. All dead within hours. — BC

Could you please provide a link to where this claim is made?

Canada is not the British Isles. and 2024 is not 1988. — Vera Mont

This comment might get deleted by Moliere.

You are correct, Canada is not the British Isles. Canada is much colder than the British Isles.

You said 2024 is not 1988, but the numbers are since 1988. not for 1988.

Longer term you have the pole-ice melting (quasi-)permanently, which means sea levels will rise. And that means a lot of the coastal cities will have to relocate. — ChatteringMonkey

How long is "longer term".

How long will it take for sea levels to rise enough to cause coastal cities to relocate?

I believe that people who don't have any children, and don't intend to have any children, have less motivation to "save the planet" than people who have children, or intend to have children.

I think that most people are inherently selfish. People who have children usually want the best for their children and this can over-ride the inherent selfishness.

If you are not going to spend your money on children then what are you going to do with it? I think that you are likely to spend it on yourself to maximise your "enjoyment of life".

The bigger factor is simply the cultural change in the society — ssu

I agree with this comment. As women's opportunities in life have increased because of better education and more equality with men, they are devoting themselves to a career, marrying less, and having less children. In Japan marriage is becoming less common because women don't want to give up their "single" lifestyle and they don't want the burden of devoting their time to a husband (which is culturally expected).

The reasons the men and women gave for why they would probably never have kids, even though they probably did want them, were: — Agree-to-Disagree

Well that's an interesting gloss. so they probably do want kids, but ... their position in the world, or the condition of the world is such that they do not want them. — unenlightened

I want to have a puppy, but I will probably never get one because of climate change.  :scream:

Just kidding. I want to have a puppy but I don't want to get one because of the cost involved.

Do I want to have a puppy?
- Yes and no.
- I do and I don't.

You can want something and not want it at the same time.
Whether you will probably never have the something is an educated guess about what will happen in the future.

I would think rather that people are disinclined to have children because they feel helpless to prevent the approaching disasters — unenlightened

This is another quote from the study:

The reasons the men and women gave for why they would probably never have kids, even though they probably did want them, were:

- Medical reasons (19 percent)
- Financial reasons (17 percent)
- No partner (15 percent)
- Thinking that they or their partner were too old (10 percent)
- The state of the world (9 percent)
- Climate change/the environment (5 percent)
- That their partner doesn’t want kids (2 percent)

So this study found that only 5% of people gave Climate change/the environment as the reason why they would probably never have kids.

How do we plan for our children? — frank

When I read this question it made me wonder how many people don't have any children, and don't intend to have any. Would these people be highly motivated to leave the world in a state that is livable for the children that they don't have ( :grin: ) and their children's children, who will never exist ( :grin: ).

I did some searching on the internet and found an interesting study.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/blog/living-single/202205/why-so-many-adults-think-they-will-never-have-children

Here are some quotes:

The number of adults who do not have kids, and do not think they will ever have kids, is growing.

Toward the end of 2021, the Pew Research Center surveyed adults in the U.S., ages 18 through 49, who did not already have children and asked them how likely it was that they would ever have children. A similar survey had already been conducted three years earlier, in 2018.

In 2018, 37 percent said it was “not too likely” or “not at all likely” that they would have children someday. By 2021, that number had increased to 44 percent.

The adults who said it was unlikely that they would ever have children were asked why. The number one reason was that they just did not want to have children. More than half, 56 percent, said that. The younger adults (those below 40) were even more likely than the older ones (ages 40-49) to say that they just didn’t want to have kids: 60 percent, compared to 46 percent.

What are the implications of this on people's motivation to "save the planet" when they don't have any children (and possibly don't intend to have any). I realise that some childless people have nieces and nephews etc. and this may affect their motivation.

if you have some basic knowledge of what basically should have been taught to you in school. — ssu

Unfortunately modern schools seem to be "dumbing things down". They don't teach critical thinking and they push propaganda onto the students.

I agree with your points about questions with simple answers, Occam's razor, etc. But what proportion of the population has the skills to do that? I think that they are in the minority.

Above all, if some issue is a political "hot potato", it's evident that there will be that bias around it. — ssu

Is climate change a political "hot potato" which has bias around it?

Wow. That's clear enough. — frank

But Frank, who pays the costs and who gets the benefits?

Are they the same people?

Some people will probably revert back to the stone age. People who are isolated will. — frank

If that ever happens then it would be long after I am dead. So I don't worry too much about it.

But I am optimistic that technology and/or AI will save us from reverting to the stone age. Of course, that assumes that AI doesn't enslave us or eradicate us first.  :scream:

One of the many solutions offered for global warming involved seeding clouds. It would be intentional pollution. It may still be on the table. — frank

Any global solution to climate change requires international cooperation and funding. So the proposed solution is doomed from the start.

Seeding clouds may have other undesirable consequences. Seeding clouds above one country could have flow on effects to other countries. The other countries might not like that.

If you think I'm going to engage in a discussion with you, then you wasted a lot of digital ink and time. — Christoffer

That's okay. I hope that you enjoy your clean air while you are suffering from catastrophic global warming.

there are tons of changes to society that may even bring better conditions for people right now. For instance, the lowering of smog and particles in the air is linked to increased death and health issues. — Christoffer

Reducing pollution accelerates global warming. How do we solve this catch-22?

This article was published on 02 November 2023
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/11/02/reducing-pollution-accelerates-global-warming-how-do-we-solve-this-catch-22

Air pollution, a global scourge that kills millions of people a year, is shielding us from the full force of the sun.

Stripped of its toxic shield, which scatters and reflects solar radiation, China's average temperatures have gone up by 0.7 degrees Celsius since 2014 (note - this is since 2014, not since pre-industrial times).

This has triggered fiercer heatwaves, according to a review of meteorological data by news agency Reuters and confirmed by six leading climate experts.

The removal of the air pollution - a term scientists call 'unmasking' - may have had a greater effect on temperatures in some industrial Chinese cities over the last decade than the warming from greenhouse gases themselves, the scientists say.

They say efforts to improve air quality could actually push the world into catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts.

"Aerosols are masking one-third of the heating of the planet," says Paulo Artaxo, an environmental physicist and lead author of the chapter on short-lived climate pollutants in the most recent round of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), completed this year.

"If you implement technologies to reduce air pollution, this will accelerate - very significantly - global warming in the short term."

During heatwaves, the unmasking effect can be even more pronounced. Laura Wilcox, a climate scientist who studies the effects of aerosols at the UK's University of Reading, says a computer simulation showed that the rapid decline in SO2 in China could raise temperatures on extreme-heat days by as much as 2C.

Which scenario do you prefer?

1) - have air pollution and lower temperatures and kill millions of people a year

2) - have improved air quality and higher temperatures and potentially catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts and possibly kill billions of people

I don't think any rational human being in their right mind would prefer any worst case scenario if the option means mild inconvenience right now — Christoffer

What Is The Right Price To Pay To Combat Climate Change?

For most Americans the answer is “Not much.”

How Americans view the challenge of climate change and what must be done to address it. In this section it discusses survey findings where respondents were asked how much they would pay on top of their monthly utility bill to combat climate change. The increments were $1, $10, $20, and $75 dollars. At a mere $1 only seven percent of respondents were more willing to pay this than not. — Robert Eccles

But I trust what independent researchers arrive at in their scenarios and data. — Christoffer

Please define what an "independent researcher" is.

The reality we are talking about isn't a subjective experience. We have subjective individual experiences, but we do share the same reality. One shouldn't confuse these two. — ssu

Yes, we share the same reality. But any individual only experiences a "subset" of reality. It is like the parable of the blind men and an elephant.

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear. — The parable of the blind men and an elephant

"Reality" is the "big picture". But most people don't see or experience the "big picture". They only see a subset of reality (this includes what they are taught, read about, are told about, see in movies, see on the internet, etc.). There are also a lot of incorrect "facts", misinformation, disinformation, etc. How do you know that your experience of reality is correct and complete?

Earth doesn't become flat because someone thinks so. — jorndoe

That is not what I meant.

@ssu said that he lives in a country that has snow and cold winters. I live in a country which has moderate temperatures. Some people live in countries that are hot.

We each experience "reality" in different ways. One person's "reality" does not necessarily invalidate a different person's "reality".

Reality denial? — ssu

Your reality or my reality?  :chin:

I do live in a country that even still has snow and cold winters. And yes, without clothes, you would freeze to death if being outside in the winter, which wouldn't happen in the tropics — ssu

So why are you worried about a little bit of global warming?

I think he/she is a bot, as in bottom. So could be in big bum after all. — Punshhh

Anything to avoid answering the questions. It seems that climate fanatics/alarmists just live in their own little echo chamber and are too scared to face the truth. :scream:

What's your real point? — ssu

I am trying to have an honest discussion about climate change.

As if that doesn't happen with the those who argue that a) climate change is not happening or b) if it's happening, it's not man made? — ssu

I disagree with the views that a) climate change is not happening or b) if it's happening, it's not man made. I don't think that scaremongering and exaggeration accompany those views. If anything there is reassurance that things don't need action and understating any possible risks.

I asked these questions hoping to get an honest rely. I think that people who are concerned about climate change should answer them. If they can't or won't answer these questions then I think that they are "deniers" and are not being realistic.

Here are the questions:

Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?

Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?

Why are these scientific facts true?
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.[/quote]

Is this your job? — fdrake

No. It's just a hobby.