acceleration of the rate of global warming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like it’s too late to stop it - which is what I keep hearing from the climate Chicken Littles, anyway.
So can we just accept that it’s happening and nothing can be done about it?

Besides, with birth rates falling like they are, we’ll be lucky to have 3 billion humans left on the earth in 100 years. It’ll be pretty hard to sustain anthropogenic climate change without people.

Even with falling birth rates the world's population is projected to continue rising until about 2090, peaking over 10 billion and then perhaps slowly declining. So climate change is likely to get even worse unless we work harder to address the problem. I disagree that nothing can be done about. Solutions exist. There are examples of wealth countries with relatively low CO2 per capita. France, for example, has a high GDP-per-capita but has a GDP-per-capita that is just one-third of the level in the U.S. While we cannot stop climate change, we can decelerate it, with a combination of nuclear power and increased renewables.

Above, I meant that France has CO-per-capita that is one-third the level of the US.

France also uses nuclear power to generate about 85% of the electrical power.

Maybe if all the American leftists, progressives and environmentalists got onboard with nuclear power we could diminish our own carbon footprint, too?

But nope. They won’t.

Which illustrates clearly that the environmental movement in America isn’t about the environment at all. It’s about consolidating political power.

Nuclear is not the only option.

For a scientific analysis of whether or not renewables like solar and wind are sufficient, this is a great book:

https://www.withouthotair.com/

Written by a British physicist, the basic conclusion is that renewables like solar and wind aren't going to be sufficient. Nuclear is essential if we want to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like it’s too late to stop it - which is what I keep hearing from the climate Chicken Littles, anyway.
So can we just accept that it’s happening and nothing can be done about it?

Besides, with birth rates falling like they are, we’ll be lucky to have 3 billion humans left on the earth in 100 years. It’ll be pretty hard to sustain anthropogenic climate change without people.

Even with falling birth rates the world's population is projected to continue rising until about 2090, peaking over 10 billion and then perhaps slowly declining. So climate change is likely to get even worse unless we work harder to address the problem. I disagree that nothing can be done about. Solutions exist. There are examples of wealth countries with relatively low CO2 per capita. France, for example, has a high GDP-per-capita but has a GDP-per-capita that is just one-third of the level in the U.S. While we cannot stop climate change, we can decelerate it, with a combination of nuclear power and increased renewables.

Above, I meant that France has CO-per-capita that is one-third the level of the US.

France also uses nuclear power to generate about 85% of the electrical power.

Maybe if all the American leftists, progressives and environmentalists got onboard with nuclear power we could diminish our own carbon footprint, too?

But nope. They won’t.

Which illustrates clearly that the environmental movement in America isn’t about the environment at all. It’s about consolidating political power.

Nuclear is not the only option.

It’s the only option if you don’t wish for everyone to revert to 17th century lifestyles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The other thing I believe is that there are natural changes that the earth goes through. Nothing stays the same over a zillion years. I think climate change is real but I also think that our expectations if weather and geography - shit changes and it doesn't stay the same for 40" years you know? If you build a house in Miami on the beach well sorry but in 400 years it may not be there and that's because the earth changes! We can't expect our desires of what we want to last forever. Life doesn't work that way - things die and seasons happen and that's not just climate change that's cycles and lufe.

Our best efforts to understand the past climate and the present climate indicate that global average temperature is now changing at a record pace. The rapid pace of change is what is most alarming -- not the fact that the climate is changing. The study that was cited earlier in this thread indicates that average temperature over land in the northern hemisphere is increasing by 1.0F every 14 years.

https://www.soa.org/resources/research-report...global-warming/#fig5

If that pace continues over the next 100 years, then by 2124 the average in North America will be 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it is today. This is a disturbingly large change across a short time period.

I understand the attitude that there is nothing that can be done because the problem is so big and complicated. But I find it too depressing to do nothing at all. I've altered my own CO2 footprint quite a bit, cutting it in half, from about 10 tons a year to 5 tons a year. I have eliminated many luxuries that I used to enjoy. So much CO2 is generated simply by excessive consumption, rather than by the production of life's necessities. The least I can do is shed some of the high-CO2 luxuries.

Good for you. Live your life of austerity and sleep well knowing that all your sacrifices are being negated by orders of magnitude by China and India. In the end the result will be the same, we’ll be a half dozen degrees warmer, sea levels will probably rise a bit, plants will grow in marginal places they couldn’t before, and life will go on.

That’s not worth me sacrificing because I know it’ll be negated by China and India. F’ it. I’m not doing it.

I understand your view, but the issue would exist even in the absence of China and India. If we were to reduce their emissions to zero, total global emissions would drop to about the global level that existed in the early 2000s -- and this level was already causing significant global warming. In fact, even if the U.S. were the sole CO2 emitter, the problem would still exist, although the rate of global warming would be much slower. If the US were the sole emitter, there would be no other countries to blame -- but I suspect you would still point your finger at other people, and say that you aren't taking action unless everybody else does the same. The issue isn't so much US vs China/India -- it is simply that most individuals are unwilling to make a sacrifice to preserve a common good if others aren't doing the same.

IMO the only solution is nuclear power. If individuals and governments are unwilling to voluntarily constrain their consumption habits, and given that solar/wind can't adequately replace fossil fuels, I think nuclear power is the only realistic option.

Nuclear power?! C'mon, haven't you seen Jane Fonda in "The China Syndrome"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like it’s too late to stop it - which is what I keep hearing from the climate Chicken Littles, anyway.
So can we just accept that it’s happening and nothing can be done about it?

Besides, with birth rates falling like they are, we’ll be lucky to have 3 billion humans left on the earth in 100 years. It’ll be pretty hard to sustain anthropogenic climate change without people.

Even with falling birth rates the world's population is projected to continue rising until about 2090, peaking over 10 billion and then perhaps slowly declining. So climate change is likely to get even worse unless we work harder to address the problem. I disagree that nothing can be done about. Solutions exist. There are examples of wealth countries with relatively low CO2 per capita. France, for example, has a high GDP-per-capita but has a GDP-per-capita that is just one-third of the level in the U.S. While we cannot stop climate change, we can decelerate it, with a combination of nuclear power and increased renewables.

Above, I meant that France has CO-per-capita that is one-third the level of the US.

France also uses nuclear power to generate about 85% of the electrical power.

Maybe if all the American leftists, progressives and environmentalists got onboard with nuclear power we could diminish our own carbon footprint, too?

But nope. They won’t.

Which illustrates clearly that the environmental movement in America isn’t about the environment at all. It’s about consolidating political power.

No left is not the issue your lying sacks of crap are

Republicans don’t support any part of climate change legislation spare us your garbage take

We live in the US our families died to keep us from having kings or dictators your boys are about to install a king so shut up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like it’s too late to stop it - which is what I keep hearing from the climate Chicken Littles, anyway.
So can we just accept that it’s happening and nothing can be done about it?

Besides, with birth rates falling like they are, we’ll be lucky to have 3 billion humans left on the earth in 100 years. It’ll be pretty hard to sustain anthropogenic climate change without people.

Even with falling birth rates the world's population is projected to continue rising until about 2090, peaking over 10 billion and then perhaps slowly declining. So climate change is likely to get even worse unless we work harder to address the problem. I disagree that nothing can be done about. Solutions exist. There are examples of wealth countries with relatively low CO2 per capita. France, for example, has a high GDP-per-capita but has a GDP-per-capita that is just one-third of the level in the U.S. While we cannot stop climate change, we can decelerate it, with a combination of nuclear power and increased renewables.

Above, I meant that France has CO-per-capita that is one-third the level of the US.

France also uses nuclear power to generate about 85% of the electrical power.

Maybe if all the American leftists, progressives and environmentalists got onboard with nuclear power we could diminish our own carbon footprint, too?

But nope. They won’t.

Which illustrates clearly that the environmental movement in America isn’t about the environment at all. It’s about consolidating political power.

No left is not the issue your lying sacks of crap are

Republicans don’t support any part of climate change legislation spare us your garbage take

We live in the US our families died to keep us from having kings or dictators your boys are about to install a king so shut up

You sound stable and reasonable

[Anonymous]

Maybe if all the American leftists, progressives and environmentalists got onboard with nuclear power we could diminish our own carbon footprint, too?

But nope. They won’t.

Which illustrates clearly that the environmental movement in America isn’t about the environment at all. It’s about consolidating political power.

I don't think opposition to nuclear power is about "consolidating political power". Opposition is rooted in fear of a nuclear accident and challenges with safely storing the radioactive waste. However, the analyses that I've read indicate that deaths and injuries per kilowatt hour of energy produced are far lower with nuclear power than with fossil fuels. In addition, new reactor designs help to reduce the risk of accidents and reduce the nuclear waste. Hopefully the opposition will begin to rethink its position in light of these improvements, and in light of the fact that nuclear power provides 24/7 reliability, while solar and wind do not.