CommieGIR posted:

Lmao getting rid of natual gas isnt going to bring down global civilization.

Now, get rid of diesel and gas, thatll happen.

Phanatic posted:

No, we're not. This is baseless hyperbole, and when you say things like that you're just giving ammunition to the "the science isn't settled" crowd.

The best available scientific evidence gives no indication that anthropogenic change will:

1. Kill billions
2. Render a significant fraction of continental landmass uninhabitable.
3. Cause planetary shortages of food or fresh water.

The IPCC assessment makes no such assertions.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

There are scientists who engage in fear-mongering and claims of existential threat. They're wrong and not helping.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ger-hallam-bbc/
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton/

Phanatic posted:

No, we're not. This is baseless hyperbole, and when you say things like that you're just giving ammunition to the "the science isn't settled" crowd.

The best available scientific evidence gives no indication that anthropogenic change will:

1. Kill billions
2. Render a significant fraction of continental landmass uninhabitable.
3. Cause planetary shortages of food or fresh water.

The IPCC assessment makes no such assertions.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf]

VideoGameVet posted:

I suggest this as a read:

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a0d7c18a1bf64e698a9c8c8f18a42889.pdf

quote:

Richard Betts, Professor, Met Office Hadley Centre & University of Exeter:
The “report” is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It’s from some sort of “think tank” who can basically write what they like. The report itself misunderstands / misrepresents science, and does not provide traceable links to the science it is based on so it cannot easily be checked (although someone familiar with the literature can work it out, and hence see where the report’s conclusions are ramped-up from the original research).

Daniel Swain, Researcher, UCLA, and Research Fellow, National Center for Atmospheric Research:
As I climate scientist, I am unaware of any scientific research that suggests changes in Earth’s climate capable of “annihilating intelligent life” over the next 30 years.

There is plenty of evidence that climate change will pose increasingly existential threats to the most vulnerable individuals in society; to low-lying coastal cities and island nations; to indigenous cultures and ways of life; and to numerous plant and animal species, and perhaps even entire ecosystems.

Such consequences are well-supported by the existing evidence, are already starting to emerge in certain regions, and should be of paramount concern. But even these very dire outcomes aren’t equivalent to the “end of human civilization,” as is claimed in the report.

Willem Huiskamp, Postdoctoral research fellow, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
This is a highly questionable conclusion. The reference provided in the report is for the “Global Catastrophic Risks 2018” report from the “Global Challenges Foundation” and not peer-reviewed literature. (It is worth noting that this latter report also provides no peer-reviewed evidence to support this claim).

Furthermore, if it is apparently beyond our capability to model these impacts, how can they assign a ‘high likelihood’ to this outcome?

While it is true that warming of this magnitude would be catastrophic, making claims such as this without evidence serves only to undermine the trust the public will have in the science.

quote:

“This is a classic case of a media article over-stating the conclusions and significance of a non-peer reviewed report that itself had already overstated (and indeed misrepresented) peer-reviewed science,” wrote Richard Betts, who chairs the department for climate impact research at the University of Exeter and leads the European Union project that studies the impacts of extreme global warming.

The Breakthrough report does indeed gather claims from other papers, climate leaders, and thinkers. But it selected many of the scariest and most speculative papers and presented them without being clear about how plausible they are.

And some of its most outrageous claims are just wrong. The report argues that if temperatures continue to rise, “fifty-five percent of the global population are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions beyond that which humans can survive.” That’d be terrifying. But Betts points out that this is based on the definition of a “deadly heat wave” from a paper that defined a deadly heat wave as one above a threshold where at least one person is expected to die (based on historical data). And some of the temperatures identified as deadly are as low as 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius) with high humidity — hot, but not what comes to mind from the phrase “lethal heat conditions beyond what humans can survive.”

“The report’s authors have merely read (or possibly seen without actually reading) a few of the scariest papers they could find, misunderstood (or not read properly) at least one of them, and presented unjustified statements,” Betts added.

Mozi posted:

Look they're just saying there will be mass unrest and widespread famine

Mozi posted:

Look they're just saying there will be mass unrest and widespread famine, anybody who claims fatalities will result is just being negative.

Phanatic posted:

No, they are not, where "they" are the IPCC.

the IPCC posted:

Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9).
...
Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2}
...
Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement). Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, particularly in developing countries with low income. Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}

CommieGIR posted:

No, we shouldnt, and enabling the fossil fuel industry is an awful idea. Subsidizing the fossil fuel industry is part of why we're in this god damned mess to begin with

Carbon capture methods are not going to make up the difference because the energy required to do so exceeds the energy released by the burning of said CO2 in the first place.

Also: Arguing that their is no reasonable way to decrease carbon release is just climate change denial in another form ("Yes its warming, yes its our fault, but we cant do anything to stop it")

Its deeply ironic that you sit here and say "We cant stop carbon release, so subsidize the primary causers of said carbon and they will save us with clean natural gas". Bullshit.

MomJeans420 posted:

The all or nothing approach isn't going to work, as mentioned many, many times in this thread. What is your idea to keep the world powered while not burning ANY fossil fuels? You keep on saying we can't burn them, but haven't offered a solution (hint: there's not one that's fossil fuel free). Reposting this chart, but are any of you ok with emissions at 1975 levels? Has anyone going for net zero emissions talked to anyone who works in power generation and transmission? Are you going to invade India and China to stop their emissions from increasing?

MomJeans420 posted:

Has anyone going for net zero emissions talked to anyone who works in power generation and transmission? Are you going to invade India and China to stop their emissions from increasing?

CommieGIR posted:

Carbon capture methods are not going to make up the difference because the energy required to do so exceeds the energy released by the burning of said CO2 in the first place.

Infinite Karma posted:

Plants and phytoplankton don't exist? We don't even need technology innovation, we just need to have living things that photosynthesize to sequester carbon. It's not a panacea, but putting in real effort to promoting plant life, and even helping get algae into the parts of the ocean where they thrive (since temperature changes affect them so much) is a powerful tool to decrease CO2 levels over time. If that means getting military-serious with Brazil about burning down the Amazon, that's probably the first "just" worldwide threat of force in generations.

Tab8715 posted:

That whole “Perfect is the enemy of good.” quote applies so well to our current circumstances.

CommieGIR posted:

But its DOESN'T MATTER WHAT CHINA DOES. What are WE doing? What are you suggesting we do, again? Oh right, subsidize Fossil Fuels. Again.

Phanatic posted:

Of *course* it matters what China does. We could wave a magic wand and go carbon-neutral today and unless you come up a solution that China buys into, it won’t make a difference.

CommieGIR posted:

The whole "Subsidizing the loving oil industry is why we're in the god damned mess" keeps missing your ears, apparently. And apparently you also missed the part where he pulled a whataboutism and claimed China will do nothing to cut their carbon output, which I can only assume means we shouldn't waste our efforts?

CommieGIR posted:

14% is not an insignificant cut, regardless of China's status as number 1 producer.

Tab8715 posted:

No, emitting greenhouses gases is what got us into this mess.

Tab8715 posted:

You’ve been continuously asked the question, which is has been asked by myself and others - what are we going to replace fossil fuels with given the demand isn’t met by renewables?

Phanatic posted:

I note you’ve just changed from apocalyptic all-or-nothing we’re-doomed-unless to “every little bit helps.”

If we reduce global emissions by 14%, then, that’s sufficient to stave off disaster, then?

Infinite Karma posted:

Plants and phytoplankton don't exist? We don't even need technology innovation, we just need to have living things that photosynthesize to sequester carbon. It's not a panacea, but putting in real effort to promoting plant life, and even helping get algae into the parts of the ocean where they thrive (since temperature changes affect them so much) is a powerful tool to decrease CO2 levels over time. If that means getting military-serious with Brazil about burning down the Amazon, that's probably the first "just" worldwide threat of force in generations.

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

On the other hand, planting trees is great but please don't forget about the rest of the entire ecology required to support them! If you do forget, all that carbon is going to go up in smoke!

CommieGIR posted:

Hi, my name is methane. I am currently leaking into the Atmosphere as we type this. Guess what I'm 4 time more potent than? CO2. I'm a greenhouse gas and there are active pushes in the Government right now to remove regulations on methane emissions, including kneecapping the EPA's ability to set said emissions.

Are we done here?


Nuclear. That's it. That's the only reasonable option. And its the option this thread has WELL ESTABLISHED already. You guys are new to this argument, there's nothing to add by raising your hand and go "Well, what if I blew your minds and suggesting a fossil fuel again?"

Take it and walk.

CommieGIR posted:

Are you suggesting that 14% is not a significant impact?

quote:

maybe you should help me understand why we should make no effort?

quote:

Hell, for all your finger pointing at China, they are actually making more efforts than that.

quote:

Yet China's overseas ventures include hundreds of electric power plants that burn coal, which is a significant emitter of the carbon scientifically linked to climate change. Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

Tab8715 posted:

2. Nuclear Power still doesn’t meet the needs of today’s energy demand. Neither does the current output of renewables with Nuclear even come close. What are we suppose to do?

Tab8715 posted:

It has been discussed that Coal is still worse then Natural Gas. If you want to dispute that - okay fine - but another poster gave an excellent source showing that is the case. And methane leaks can be prevented - it merely has to be regulated like everything else.

Tab8715 posted:

And methane leaks can be prevented - it merely has to be regulated like everything else.

Tab8715 posted:

I’m already well aware methane is worse than carbon dioxide.

2. Nuclear Power still doesn’t meet the needs of today’s energy demand. Neither does the current output of renewables with Nuclear even come close. What are we suppose to do?

Tab8715 posted:

It has been discussed that Coal is still worse then Natural Gas. If you want to dispute that - okay fine - but another poster gave an excellent source showing that is the case. If you disagree with that I’m happy to see those arguments.

I’m already well aware methane is worse than carbon dioxide or that the fossil fuel industry has participated in climate denial. Meeting energy demand and those topics are entirely separate discussions.

2. Nuclear Power still doesn’t meet the needs of today’s energy demand. Neither does the current output of renewables with Nuclear even come close. What are we suppose to do?

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

You're supposed to remove every energy consuming source you can that you don't deem critical infrastructure. Hope that helps clear things up for you.

CommieGIR posted:

Nuclear CAN meet todays needs. Build out is needed. But there is no other solution that is valid, right now, and will address our emissions addiction. That's it.

Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

Uh, build more powerplants?

Phanatic posted:

If we started right now, today, how long would it take to build all the nuclear plants you think are necessary to be a valid solution and address our emissions addiction? Best case.

Tab8715 posted:

Because you’d have to build thousands and thousands of nuclear power plants. It’s literally impossible.

CommieGIR posted:

15-20 years. Best case.

Tab8715 posted:

Because you’d have to build thousands and thousands of nuclear power plants. It’s literally impossible.

I’d question if we even have enough uranium reserves to even fuel them in the first place.

Tab8715 posted:

CommieGIR posted:

15-20 years. Best case.

If we had a Manhattan Project level initiative to do so: 10 years.

Mozi posted:

Even with infinite money this is literally impossible.

Mozi posted:

Even with infinite money this is literally impossible.

CommieGIR posted:

Y'know what? Whatever. Your path leads to more methane leaks, more drilling, and more money to the companies directly responsible for our mess. The fact that you see and praise that as a valid solution in the face of an increasingly dire IPCC report says all I need to know about how serious you take this.

We've spend 150 years doing 'Cheap Energy' and its going to lead to significant problems, and all you can say is "Keep drilling baby, its cheap". You are not solving any problems, your just kicking the can down the road.

Saint Celestine posted:

Why is this impossible? The Chinese are building reactors from groundbreak to criticality in under a decade.

Tab8715 posted:

Personally, I’m kind of interested in this idea but I wonder exactly how deep we’d have to cut.