Climate change warning

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
1,203
Are you tired of reading stories about the virus? Tired of the sensationalistic headlines from the media? Well, the media is not letting up. The next catastrophe is climate change. Read on if you dare:

 
Last edited:

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
1,203
A headline from Reuters, dated today:

U.N. sounds 'deafening' warning on climate change​

 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
5,425
Well, I don't know what to say. Media sucks, sure, and they like spreading their daily dose of pessimism. I stopped watching France evening news for so long, I just can't remember.
But burying one's head in the sand won't help either.

I agree that daily life is a more and more precarious mental balance between suicidal pessimism and trying to live an ordinary life.

You forgot the Gulf stream becoming unstable, with potentially catastrophic climate change all over the place. Except they don't know exactly when - could be months, years, or decades.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
1,203
The Media, or more precisely, The Mainstream Media, has become abnormal. Instead of news: Issue Advocay. What will scare people the most? We are OK, The Media is not. Our thoughts are normal. What The Media does is not.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,920
Reaction score
932
Nothing to worry about, then?
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
235
The next catastrophe is climate change.

Well, the last one was also climate change... scientists have had data driven models predicting it wit ha fair degree of confidence since the 1980s... it is just that some people have very short memories and forget... last year? The year before? Nope. It was last year that Australia burned...
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
1,203
All that's needed is an awareness of the whole picture. Is there a problem? Yes. Are there ways to solve the problem? Yes. In the meantime, various financial entities are still not committed to rapid action. They will phase in various technologies while continuing to make money during the transition. If other useful devices/technology appear, they will be added. But it all has to work in a way that does not interrupt the flow of profits.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
235
The next catastrophe is climate change.

Well, the last one was also climate change... scientists have had data driven models predicting it wit ha fair degree of confidence since the 1980s... it is just that some people have very short memories and forget... last year? The year before? Nope. It was last year that Australia burned...

Of course... that was when computer modelling and data showed a high degree of certainty that action was necessary. We've known about Greenhouse gases since Tyndall (1859) and Foote (1856)... all that we needed after that was to quantify how much we were changing the earth's atmosphere. 1+1=2

(Obviously, properly calculating the rate of anthropogenic climate change and its impact on various systems takes a lot more work - e.g. the amount of vertical eat exchange in the oceans and thresholds at which thermoclines change etc. etc. But the basic fact of it was obvious.)
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
4,197
Website
www.amazon.com
In my opinion what is happening is that advertising has completely lost the effectiveness it had in the twentieth century, the baby boomer generation has acquired an enormous ability to ignore advertising messages and subsequent generations have learned that there is a button that does the job better.

The advertising industry and the media that live off it have had to survive by selling their services to different groups with sporting, political and religious interests... capitalist advertising has become propaganda and propaganda does not work well in democracies, so the next step will be to use propaganda to destroy them.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
2,870
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Nothing to worry about, then?

Well, if you're well and truly serious about combating climate change, you have to ask yourself two questions that the media rarely asks:
1: what are you doing to bring on several dozen terawatts of new nuclear power
2: what are you doing to cut not only the population growth but the actual populations of Africa and Asia, especially China and India? That's where the real problems going forward are.
 
Last edited:

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
1,203
I follow the advertising industry. The most important publication is Advertising Age. There are others. Advertising is just as effective as it ever was. If it wasn't I'd see no ads on TV or the internet. Baby Boomers, so-called, have nothing to do with it. Getting a product, including Climate Change, in front of people is done by various means.

And Democracy has nothing to do with it. Bad weather is not political. Global Warming is... well, Global. So, no argument in favor of propaganda or politics there.

The issue is money and technology. Let's say I'm a very wealthy person who has been making money off of Oil and Gas stocks for decades. Now, people want to shut that down. I do not want to lose a single dollar, so what do I do? I invest in new technology designed to solve the climate change problem. From the point of view of the oil and gas companies, they know they will not go out of business overnight. Look at the UK. Today it was reported that the UK will cut emissions by 2035. All emissions? No. 78%. That's 78%. They will go to zero emissions when? 2050. Hardly moving quickly.

 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,920
Reaction score
932
You are missing the point if you concentrate on the marketing issues of climate change. We are running out of time for mitigation of the worst effects of climate change, never mind prevention.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
1,203
You are missing the point if you concentrate on the marketing issues of climate change. We are running out of time for mitigation of the worst effects of climate change, never mind prevention.

Running out of time? Tell that to Prime Minister Johnson.
 

Calum Douglas

Piston engine designer
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
497
Website
www.calum-douglas.com
Are you tired of reading stories about the virus? Tired of the sensationalistic headlines from the media? Well, the media is not letting up. The next catastrophe is climate change. Read on if you dare:


Data says no, although its getting harder to use that argument as many of the ground temp data-stations are adjusted - so finding actual raw unadjusted data now
is increasingly impossible unless you`re doing this full time. Satellite avoids that problem (encroachment of new population centres on exising temp measurement stations), however that only goes back a few decades, which is piffilingly short of being able to catch the normal ebb and flow of things.

There are also many arguments about methods used for CO2 concentration levels going back millions of years. It can go either way depending on your preference. Given that almost all the measures proposed by those frightened about climate are either counterproductive, or at best neutral, I remain deeply sceptical. Nuclear which is the only pragmatic solution to lowering CO2, is usually "verboten" to even discuss, and I`ve even had "green activists" complaining that I am a strong proponent of cycling, because I dont think electric bicycles are very sensible. Go figure!

Ev6TlsRVkAEBsnI.jpg
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
1,236
Can I just add another spin on this?

1. Plastic waste. This has been discussed for the last forty years. Industry (Packaging) say's, "We can't reduce plastic use it would take thirty years". What they really mean is "We need to continue raping the oil reserves of the planet until we have got every last penny out of the reserves.

2. Energy. "We have to reduce use of oil and other fossil fuels". What they really mean is, "We have to reduce use of oil but we have to make sure our sponsors get the dosh so we can make after dinner engagements a thing and get lots of dosh in 'retirement'.

I have no idea why we are relying on a one shot wonder of BE when we could have so many more strings to our bow and get better results faster for less money. Hang on though, all those interested parties WANT us to chuck ever increasing amounts of moolah at the problem and restrict it to the one hit wonder. What a lot of tosh. Multiple lines of research is a better bet.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
1,203
Two things need to happen and soon.

The storage of electricity. Electricity is generated constantly but it is not stored. New battery technology exists but it has not gone into production yet. It appears that the parties involved are waiting for the right moment - after the virus is under control - to introduce it. One example is the "million mile battery" good for the equivalent of one million miles of driving. Another is the solid-state battery which is smaller and where one version can be built in the same plant that produces current lithum-ion batteries. This would solve one problem with solar energy: no power at night. With electric power storage batteries, some of that daylight could be put away for nighttime use. And it's a safer technology.

Developments in materials science have shown that the output of solar cells could be greatly increased. It's just a matter of getting the funding and an urgent, as fast as possible development commitment.

Meanwhile, other things are happening or in the planning stages, like an artificial island off the coast of Denmark.

 

Lc89

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
298
Reaction score
196

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
4,197
Website
www.amazon.com
The first step to achieve a global dictatorship is to create a global problem, then come the global solutions proposed by a committee of wise men, the global sanctions for not complying with the committee's recommendations, the accusations of disloyalty to the global heritage and the isolation of dissidents by denying them access to social networks... you know the rest of the story.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
1,236
Sadly it is all too prevalent as a method of disseminating propaganda and moo sniff hurl. We do need to address the climate changes but in a joined up manner where money is NOT the target, science is.
 

edwest2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
1,203
Unless money is committed, nothing gets done. An artificial island in the North Sea? Someone has to fund that. Other solutions need to be built and paid for. Making a profit is a must though.

Those who entertain any thoughts of a "global dictatorship" should also provide a way to avoid this from happening.

Regular people are at stake here. Wind farms are one solution. And this does require some imagination. Something that I see lacking in various places. A trial of something new in Switzerland:

 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
492
Reaction score
670
Follow the French (and now Chinese) model: Go Nuclear

What environmental problems can't be addressed by the liberal application of carbon-free Baseload energy?
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
522
Reaction score
561
Why would humanity develop the technology necessary for interstellar life if earth is so comfortable?~~~ a few degrees is nothing compared to anything out there. Humanity being a tropical animal means most of the planet is in general too cold anyway, increased temperature actually opens up land for habitation.

If you look at economist estimates of damages at say, 2C, it is rather unexciting for multidecade media campaigns.

The only productive sector that would be under serious stress would be agriculture. This will just translate people eating more gmo soy instead of free range animals or something, nothing too interesting.

Now, something on nuclear
A Morning Consult survey finds that a plurality of female voters, 42 percent, oppose increasing the use of nuclear power to generate electricity in the United States; 38 percent support it. A strong majority of men, 70 percent, support using more nuclear power, while 23 percent oppose.
 
Last edited:

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
4,197
Website
www.amazon.com
There is no physical problem that a good engineer cannot solve if the means are provided, but for every engineer there are a thousand lawyers interested in the problem not being solved to live off of it. Perhaps when several days pass without electricity as a result of their bad practices they will look for the phone of some specialist who fixes everything.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
235
2: what are you doing to cut not only the population growth but the actual populations of Africa and Asia, especially China and India? That's where the real problems going forward are.

Interesting caveat to that: If one compares per-capita emissions in Madagascar and the United States... one can support more than a dozen people in Madagascar for every American... so it is only really a problem if people in Africa, China, India, and other 'underdeveloped' countries want to grow their economies to be as wealthy as the U.S. (which would produce a lot of other resource shortages).

Anyway, what this means is that it is also very efficient to encourage people in the United States and Europe to reduce their emissions (since there is a lot more room for them to improve their efficiency).
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
235
There is no physical problem that a good engineer cannot solve if the means are provided, but for every engineer there are a thousand lawyers interested in the problem not being solved to live off of it. Perhaps when several days pass without electricity as a result of their bad practices they will look for the phone of some specialist who fixes everything.

There is a fundamental problem though - in that one can end up with bad engineering if the goals the engineers are given are too narrow. For instance, some of the proposals for precipitating Co2 into the Oceans would have led to catastrophic changes in Ocean chemistry if implemented... the engineers were focussed on solving climate change, but were unaware of the side-effects of their proposed solution - that said, I do agree that massive engineering efforts could help a lot.

The other problems are on the social, not technical side - particularly - generating the political will and organisation to get societies to respond on a massive scale and actually approve the engineering project (i.e. like your lawyer problem, but expanded to include people who aren't lawyers who would also undermine the will to make the attempt).

Finally, people need to be reassured that their families and themselves will have good life outcomes regardless of these major projects and changes to economies. For instance, as demand for petroleum has reduced we've seen a lot of layoffs (same goes for coal) and it becomes important to ensure that the workers get retrained for new jobs, don't lose their houses in the process, don't lose their autonomy, and are assured that their families will have enough to eat and good medical care in the process.

So it goes a lot smoothly if one does things like aiming for full employment, having a guaranteed annual income, housing subsidies or public health insurance during the transition. Of course public investments in some of these major engineering solutions could help with that, but the amount of retraining required would still require a lot of education subsidies etc.
 
Last edited:

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
235
Why would humanity develop the technology necessary for interstellar life if earth is so comfortable?~~~ a few degrees is nothing compared to anything out there. Humanity being a tropical animal means most of the planet is in general too cold anyway, increased temperature actually opens up land for habitation.

So, a few caveats on that:

We actually evolved during an ice age (albeit in Africa - but modern humans expanded out of Africa as well during the Ice Age).

As a Canadian I can assure you that it doesn't open up land for habitation. Most of Canada and Siberia was scraped clean by glaciers - down to the bedrock. The remaining areas consist of podzols created by conifers and acidic sphagnum dominated muskeg. The podzols in particular are very bad soils. So one would basically have to manufacture all of the topsoil artificially. Furthermore, the growing season isn't just dependent on temperature, but also sunlight (which doesn't change) which puts an upper limit. Without manufacturing topsoil artificially it'd literally take hundreds of years to get arable land in most of Canada and Siberia.

Most of the world's cereal production is in land which is too dry and bright to be forested... converted grasslands and prairies... and many of the most productive regions are thus quite dry. They are vulnerable to desertification... and even if new arable land could be created, it may not be as productive.

Also, the Last Glacial Maximum was 6.1 degrees cooler than the present... so a few degrees can mean covering entire hemispheres in glaciers (eventually)... 5 degrees average warming would lead to incredibly different world.

So what you say might be true... if we kept to 2.5 degrees and the process took 10,000 years in order to allow the formation of new topsoils... (having it happen in a 100 years on the other hand... and don't get me started about 4 degrees)
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
235
Given that almost all the measures proposed by those frightened about climate are either counterproductive, or at best neutral, I remain deeply sceptical.

Quick questions:
- Do you believe the greenhouse gases exist?
- Do you believe humans are able to change the composition of the earth's atmosphere?

If so, it should be possible to calculate the overall impact on temperature produced through the changing compositions of the earth's atmosphere.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
380
There is no physical problem that a good engineer cannot solve if the means are provided, but for every engineer there are a thousand lawyers interested in the problem not being solved to live off of it. Perhaps when several days pass without electricity as a result of their bad practices they will look for the phone of some specialist who fixes everything.
And just at this moment, in Illinois, climate-activist lawyers are trying their best to close nuclear power plants which provide a massive chunk of Illinois’ clean energy. You’d hardly think a climate emergency was upon us!
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
380
Two things need to happen and soon.

The storage of electricity. Electricity is generated constantly but it is not stored. New battery technology exists but it has not gone into production yet. It appears that the parties involved are waiting for the right moment - after the virus is under control - to introduce it. One example is the "million mile battery" good for the equivalent of one million miles of driving. Another is the solid-state battery which is smaller and where one version can be built in the same plant that produces current lithum-ion batteries. This would solve one problem with solar energy: no power at night. With electric power storage batteries, some of that daylight could be put away for nighttime use. And it's a safer technology.

Developments in materials science have shown that the output of solar cells could be greatly increased. It's just a matter of getting the funding and an urgent, as fast as possible development commitment.

Meanwhile, other things are happening or in the planning stages, like an artificial island off the coast of Denmark.

The problem is, battery tech is getting better - moving from just being able to smooth variable renewable output to being able to back-up for a few hours.

Maybe we’ll reach a few days back-up in the coming decade, maybe a bit more. But weeks and months? That’s way out.

But also, maybe we’ll find these large-scale installations are problematic - maybe they cause more troubles than they‘re worth. We’ll not only need a plan B, but one that’s already working.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
2,870
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
it is only really a problem if people in Africa, China, India, and other 'underdeveloped' countries want to grow their economies to be as wealthy as the U.S.

And they do, and they're racing as fast as they can to achieve and surpass that goal.

Anyway, what this means is that it is also very efficient to encourage people in the United States and Europe to reduce their emissions

Not *as* efficient. Americans and Europeans reduce their emissions 90% won't mean a thing if India and China bring their economic/carbon output up to American standard per capita. 330 million Americans reduce to the effect of 33 million Americans = savings of 297 million Americans. China and India go to American standard = roughly three *billion* additional Americans in output. Nothing the US does will make the slightest bit of difference.

Note that means not only energy use and carbon output, it also meas *food.* China will denude the seas of life to feed their billions to raise the caloric input to current western standards.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
235
it is only really a problem if people in Africa, China, India, and other 'underdeveloped' countries want to grow their economies to be as wealthy as the U.S.

And they do, and they're racing as fast as they can to achieve and surpass that goal.

Anyway, what this means is that it is also very efficient to encourage people in the United States and Europe to reduce their emissions

Not *as* efficient. Americans and Europeans reduce their emissions 90% won't mean a thing if India and China bring their economic/carbon output up to American standard per capita. 330 million Americans reduce to the effect of 33 million Americans = savings of 297 million Americans. China and India go to American standard = roughly three *billion* additional Americans in output. Nothing the US does will make the slightest bit of difference.

Note that means not only energy use and carbon output, it also meas *food.* China will denude the seas of life to feed their billions to raise the caloric input to current western standards.

I can't argue with that. In the short term there are huge gains to be made in the 'developed world' (more capacity for technological change, and high rates of emissions that can be easily reduced).

But I think you are basically right that this is ultimately a central problem, especially in the long term - we'll have to become very efficient or we'll have to encourage people to have less children overall. I find it odd that some countries are paranoid about declining populations. The way I see it old people are not much more costly than infants and children - so having more old people isn't going to be much harder to pay for than educating the boomers was - and also, we no longer measure military potential by how many men come of age each year to be sent to the trenches... the world has changed... having more resources per-capita, and thus more political stability as a result of less internal competition within a country, may ultimately be just as important as the absolute GDP in many cases.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,256
Reaction score
743
Data says no, although its getting harder to use that argument as many of the ground temp data-stations are adjusted - so finding actual raw unadjusted data now is increasingly impossible unless you`re doing this full time. Satellite avoids that problem (encroachment of new population centres on exising temp measurement stations), however that only goes back a few decades, which is piffilingly short of being able to catch the normal ebb and flow of things.

If you are skeptical about climate change, I'm surprised it's the temperature adjustments you seem to be taking issue with. After all, they tend to reduce the postulated warming effect - strictly according to the raw data, we'd be starting from an even lower base. AFAIK most of the adjustments hardly affect recent measurements but are to bring historical records in line with modern standards and account for recent perturbations, precisely such as encroachment by urban heat islands.

Nuclear which is the only pragmatic solution to lowering CO2, is usually "verboten" to even discuss,

Agreed, in the mid-term most countries will be hard-pressed to get by without nuclear energy. As the nuclear waste cat is already out of the bag (we won't undo the problem by abandoning nuclear energy today), we might as well use it to help bridge the gap. Like all natural resources, renewable energy is not evenly distributed - some parts of the globe are blessed with more abundant and/or more accessible reserves. The disparities are fortunately not as drastic as they are with oil, gas and coal, but big enough to cause short-term challenges for many.


And modern weather forecasting and communications infrastructure, providing much more accurate and timely advance warning of severe weather, have nothing whatsoever to do with this?



Or advances in disease control (e.g. water purification, antibiotics)? Better flood control measures and generally improved security of the food supply due to agricultural progress? Better national and international crisis response management, combined with a wane in aggravation of famines due to political factors (Stalin/Mao come to mind...)?

In the non-climate-related category, only volcanism has seen significant improvements in prediction capability (but is still nowhere near as good as weather forecasting). At the same time, its yearly death toll is typically negligible either way: due to the generally limited reach*, it is exceedingly rare for volcanic activity to cause even a blip in such a diagramme. Right now I can think of only two occasions in the 20th and 21st centuries where that would be the case - 1902 and 1985. That is to say, it's pretty easy to explain why the red line does not see an improving trend, as the major culprit (earthquakes/tsunamis, bit academic to separate these) remains largely impossible to make actionable forecasts on.

Also, I'm not that conversant with flooding, drought and storm death tolls, but the non-climate-related data at least appears to have had the sh*t smoothed out of it. Where's the spike shortly after 2000 caused by the 2004 Boxing Day earthquake and tsunami? And again in 2010, for Haiti? Both these singular events should reach ~50 per year & million population alone. I suspect both data sets are in fact considerably more noisy than shown, to the point where it substantially damages the force of the argument. All in all, the relationship to climate change which is being insinuated here is tenuous at best.

* Unless the event is truly cataclysmic (say, VEI>6) - then effects can be global.
 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
222
Reaction score
138
That we are altering Earth's atmosphere is beyond any doubt.

Current and future levels of CO2 and other gases can store more energy in the atmosphere than at any time in human prehistory or recorded history. The rate of change is unprecedented, save perhaps for super eruptions and the odd asteroid giving us a good whack. The anthropogenic nature of the process shows up in a) the amounts of fossil fuels used and the amounts of gases in the air matching up as predicted and b) fossilized carbons showing a different isotope distribution than that of pre-industrialized times, also matching fossil fuels used.

There are a couple of old chestnuts here:

1) "We can engineer ourselves out of the mess": Well, time is of the essence so it is foolhardy to project too much into our future capacity to act. The principle of prudence supersedes optimism here and, frankly, if anyone understood that one can scarcely "negotiate" with the laws of thoroughly understood physics it should be engineers. Use the tools that we have in the necessary scale, integrate future positive developments as they come but do not presuppose them. We are not in a linear change situation, there are irreversible tipping points at somewhat indeterminable distances before us that should be steered as clear of as we possibly can.

2) "The greens oppose nuclear energy": For most environmentally predisposed persons and organizations, the issue of nuclear energy is elementally entwined with the rates of change, of the crisis and of the required mitigating measures. Sure, two, three decades ago those rates allowed for options but now we are clearly in an "all hands at deck" situation. While nuclear energy might not be very palatable to some (and can't be the sole solution) there's not too much categorical, practical opposition remaining because the demands of the situation have evolved. What basically remains is an outdated rhetorical tool to smear environmentalism as irrational and extreme on the whole. Dealing with the risks of extended use of old nuclear power plants and the generally woefully mismanaged waste problem continue to be at grave odds with nuclear energy being a realistic solution and must be addressed on a case by case basis without forgetting the whole.

3) "Climate change is unsolvable without addressing the size of the population": There are no projections in which global population will continue to grow beyond a few decades; the growth is uneven but what remains of it happens almost exclusively at areas the least responsible per capita for climate change (a small fraction, in fact). Since continents like Africa do not need to replicate all the steps (and mistakes) others have made on the way to efficiency and sustainability much of the remaining effect can be mitigated by just leapfrogging fossil fuels. The most surefire way to control population sizes is to increase prosperity and well being and this is doable with a much higher purchasing power parity of food and energy security in places that those of us who are often the most energy-gluttonous call in a belittling way "underdeveloped". Beyond that, (external, objectifying) talk of active measures (beyond well established social, participatory and consensual managing of birth rates) on the whole are just efforts to widen the Overton window into some deeply unethical, cruel and unnecessary territory and driven by something else than environmental concerns entirely.

I guess there are more, but who's making exhaustive lists anyway?

On the whole climate scientists and activists are portrayed as somehow imposing "doom and gloom" on the rest of us. It is the other way around, actually, since the rather well resourced forces either relying on the continued use of fossil fuels and/or betting (the market and otherwise) on the worst kind of mayhem climate change can cause are trying to force a "between a rock and a hard place" situation. Sadly they've been somewhat successful in catering "the comfort of an inevitable disaster" in a deeply cynical zero sum game, tied intrinsically with ideas of totalitarianism and a circular history of which there is no escape. There's no balance in the numbers between facts and fallacies so the strategies of mitigating climate change must account for that as well.

I recently listened to a podcast which (fleetingly) speculated on a planetary civilization on a more resource scarce world, whether one would be possible and whether such a society would be elementally more environmentally cognizant. One of the byproducts of our deep evolutionary history are the fossil remains of the life that went before us. In many a sense that has carried us this far but we're now faced with taking the next step and that can be at least as inspiring, imaginative, involving an effort as any embarked upon before us.

 
Last edited:

drejr

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
211
Reaction score
181
I suspect both data sets are in fact considerably more noisy than shown, to the point where it substantially damages the force of the argument

It looks like an x-year moving average that makes it appear like deaths have been in continuous yearly decline. Most fatalities between 1928-1965 were related to three droughts and three floods in China, India, and Bangladesh. Water infrastructure has mitigated the human toll of events like these but it's doubtful they've decreased in frequency or natural intensity.
 

Attachments

  • disasters.png
    disasters.png
    79.4 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
380
Are you tired of reading stories about the virus? Tired of the sensationalistic headlines from the media? Well, the media is not letting up. The next catastrophe is climate change. Read on if you dare:


Data says no, although its getting harder to use that argument as many of the ground temp data-stations are adjusted - so finding actual raw unadjusted data now
is increasingly impossible unless you`re doing this full time. Satellite avoids that problem (encroachment of new population centres on exising temp measurement stations), however that only goes back a few decades, which is piffilingly short of being able to catch the normal ebb and flow of things.
Ground station data gets adjusted for good reasons, notably to account for the moving of the station, or a change in the station environment (e.g., urbanization bringing a heat-island effect which has to be accounted for).
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
380
2) "The greens oppose nuclear energy": For most environmentally predisposed persons and organizations, the issue of nuclear energy is elementally entwined with the rates of change, of the crisis and of the required mitigating measures. Sure, two, three decades ago those rates allowed for options but now we are clearly in an "all hands at deck" situation. While nuclear energy might not be very palatable to some (and can't be the sole solution) there's not too much categorical, practical opposition remaining because the demands of the situation have evolved. What basically remains is an outdated rhetorical tool to smear environmentalism as irrational and extreme on the whole. Dealing with the risks of extended use of old nuclear power plants and the generally woefully mismanaged waste problem continue to be at grave odds with nuclear energy being a realistic solution and must be addressed on a case by case basis without forgetting the whole.
I wish that was true, but in recent times Greens, or politicians wanting to mollify Green backers, have closed down Indian Point, moved to eliminate all of Belgium‘s reactors, and are trying to close reactors in Illinois.

I would hope this report would change their mind - but to be honest, they’ve near-eternally been pushing the worst-ever case for climate catastrophe, and been happy pushing solar, wind, and natural gas whilst trying to get as many nukes shut down as they can.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
5,425
"the thread of doom" - that's how we should call that discussion...

What is a pity with nuclear is, there are far, far better reactor designs that freakkin' PWR / BWR out there; but they have been cast aside for nearly 70's. Since Ike "atom for piece" led to Rickover submarine reactors steamrolling the civilian market the first generation - and in turn, all three generations that followed...

I want MSRE reactors. Many of them. NOT with thorium and as breeders - it is a separate topic and probably an idiocy.

But MSRE ? they rock.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
492
Reaction score
670
"the thread of doom" - that's how we should call that discussion...

What is a pity with nuclear is, there are far, far better reactor designs that freakkin' PWR / BWR out there; but they have been cast aside for nearly 70's. Since Ike "atom for piece" led to Rickover submarine reactors steamrolling the civilian market the first generation - and in turn, all three generations that followed...

I want MSRE reactors. Many of them. NOT with thorium and as breeders - it is a separate topic and probably an idiocy.

But MSRE ? they rock.
At risk of derailing the thread...

Archie if you're interested in further advanced nuclear concepts, check out these to reports on the "Advanced High Temperature Reactor" which combines the best bits of Molten Salt and High-Temp gas reactors. Very promising concepts that have advanced little.


 

Similar threads

Top