Climate change tipping point could be coming sooner than we think: study

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
7,154
and even if the models are overstating the risk, why take the chance? If they are right and nothing is done in time it could be catastrophic. If they are wrong and we make environmentally friendly changes for no reason we're still better off. So let's rather assume the worst case scenario and work with that....
It is not true that making changes can only be beneficial and has no opportunity cost. In fact, anything that restricts the ability of especially the third world to industrialise as rapidly as possible could have disastrous unintended human consequences.

Historical stats show that the faster countries industrialise and urbanise, the faster their populations stabilise and even start reducing. The wealth they create from that industrialisation ultimately also empowers them to afford cleaner technologies. Impeding their ability to use whatever cheap fossil fuels are available could actually significantly prolong their development, cause continued unnecessary population growth and delay their ability to move to cleaner energy sources.

And when it comes to carbon taxes and the like, the retarding effect on the global economy could run into many trillions of dollars, i.e. we will all be that much poorer, living under more totalitarian regulations, and for what benefit?? The best projections are that all of this huge expense would have only very small effect anyway.
 

Hellhound105

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
2,507
Again, this just displays your ignorance.
The problem with Climate Change is not the cyclical nature of tempreature fluctuations.
That has already been built into the model.
The problem is with the accelerated pace of global warming which is unprecedented and without a doubt of a man made nature. If the planet warms too quickly it's gonna cause unusual problems that the previous ice ages never had. The prvious ice ages also never had this kind of population distribution spread out over the entire planet.
Thus humans are to blame...gotcha
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,217
Have you noticed how Eskom is being run here? Are you really comfortable putting Nuclear power plants in the hands of institutions like that, wuth their dismall records of maintenance, corruption an cost cutting? Also, these plants are extremely expensive to build and take a very long time to build. They need to be maintained properly.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a26255413/green-new-deal-nuclear-power/
They offer consistent safe reliable power at a far better rate than newgen renewables
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,146
Again, this just displays your ignorance.
The problem with Climate Change is not the cyclical nature of tempreature fluctuations.
That has already been built into the model.
The problem is with the accelerated pace of global warming which is unprecedented and without a doubt of a man made nature. If the planet warms too quickly it's gonna cause unusual problems that the previous ice ages never had. The prvious ice ages also never had this kind of population distribution spread out over the entire planet.
Ice core data beg to differ. And we don't know how much of the warming is due to human influence. 100%? 90%? 60? 48%? 42%? 30%?

And we don't even know if warming is actually going to more bad than more good. Sure, a lot of scaremongering goes on but that does not do anybody any favours.
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,146
"scientific consensus":ROFL: Poor Dave is probably still taking his antioxidants and bleating about scientific consensus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,790
Oh my is this the climate change version of Pascal's wager?

but to answer your question.

The most rational thing we can do is transition to nuclear power, this will reduce emissions and stave off fossil fuel depletion.

Nuclear is safer and cheaper than wind or solar, uses far less land for the output.

Nuclear will enable livable healthy electric cities while reducing energy poverty. etc etc.

The best thing about this is that Nuclear will do all of this even if there is no ACC.

it's actually the only rational choice for everyone.
Nuclear isn't viable on a global scale and will only delay the transition to solar and wind for a few years. That's the reality that nuclear pundits ignore. Also there's still no solution for the waste issue.

Nope. We have more than enough evidence that climate change is real, is caused by humans and will be catastrophic for humans and current life if not dealt with. All that is maybe up for debate is how long we have to change our way of life and doing business. Since there is no evidence for god whatsoever, climate change is not a version of Pascals wager at all.

You may be right about nuclear energy being the only solution, or at least a large part of the solution - even the Green New Deal allows for nuclear energy, so it's definitely not 'off the table' or not being considered as a solution. Personally I'm not convinced yet, but I would not object if this became a driving point for tackling climate change.
The only thing you have is that the evidence isn't incompatible with it. That's a far cry from it being a cause and effect.

Again, this just displays your ignorance.
The problem with Climate Change is not the cyclical nature of tempreature fluctuations.
That has already been built into the model.
The problem is with the accelerated pace of global warming which is unprecedented and without a doubt of a man made nature. If the planet warms too quickly it's gonna cause unusual problems that the previous ice ages never had. The prvious ice ages also never had this kind of population distribution spread out over the entire planet.
LOL. The only thing there is are models. Yet those working on ground levels say they just don't see any of the predictions happening. Also accelerated pace of global warming? Even the climate change pundits have now let go of that idea why they no longer call it global warming.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,200
LOL. The only thing there is are models. Yet those working on ground levels say they just don't see any of the predictions happening.
Incorrect.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

Swa said:
Also accelerated pace of global warming? Even the climate change pundits have now let go of that idea why they...
Also incorrect. You should probably not rely on 'pundits' for your information.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5

Swa said:
...no longer call it global warming.
Nope. They mean different things and have both been used for a long time.

Your silly strawman aside, the goal isn't de-industrialization, it's decarbonisation.

The most rational thing we can do is transition to nuclear power, this will reduce emissions and stave off fossil fuel depletion.
I like nuclear, and think we should keep existing plants open as long as possible, but I'm just not convinced at all that it's a feasible solution. There's simply no way to scale it up at a global scale in the time required.

It takes too long to build, costs way too much, we don't have enough fuel or skilled workers, and wouldn't know what to do with all the waste.

Most of the climate change solutions on offer fail dismally they offer little or no guaranteed outcomes at extreme cost and hardship, as such they fail both the sanity check and the cost benefit tests.
None of this is true.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,200
All I want to know is how humans caused this?
We are helping it along but we did not start it.
The problem is we're putting way too much greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere for the world's natural 'carbon sinks' (forests, algae etc.) to absorb.

There are natural sources of greenhouse emissions, too, but human activity produces way more and it's overwhelming what can be absorbed.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,217
I like nuclear, and think we should keep existing plants open as long as possible, but I'm just not convinced at all that it's a feasible solution. There's simply no way to scale it up at a global scale in the time required.

It takes too long to build, costs way too much, we don't have enough fuel or skilled workers, and wouldn't know what to do with all the waste.
The nuclear plants take as long to build as they take, fossil fuels will keep the lights on until then because solar and wind can't.

Luckily the next generation of planned plants will use the waste from the old ones.

None of this is true.
None of their predictions are working now, How can we rely on their mitigation predictions?
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,200
The nuclear plants take as long to build as they take,
Ah, convincing.

alloytoo said:
...fossil fuels will keep the lights on until then because solar and wind can't.
Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, bioenergy, nuclear...

alloytoo said:
Luckily the next generation of planned plants will use the waste from the old ones.
What?

alloytoo said:
None of their predictions are working now,
Incorrect.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

alloytoo said:
How can we rely on their mitigation predictions?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking how we can know that energy sources that produce less greenhouse emissions will help in lowering the amount of greenhouse emissions?
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
13,445
Apart from the southern Cape South Africa hasn't much to worry about in terms of climate change
 

Moto Guzzi

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
560
Few other factors to consider:
1-Over population-Political ideologies of the 50-Ties where breeding was encourage to overthrow governments in the future. The sad thing here is it comes to haunt the originators and those around them. The human race has many intelligence types but the one type, Social-Intelligence coupled to the control of the human-race itself is lacking as populations grew, and we have now became our own fools due to population thresholds overstepped, just too many minds.Those old minds of the 40/50-Ties did not had the foresight to see this coming.
2-World power struggles, change for the sake of change, so far change and diversifications proved to be short term monetary successes for some. Intelligence & resources struggle including corruption to excellerate the causes.
3-The fairytale digital promises did not help either, created a fastfood like digital culture of change and waiste.
4-Today:If you cannot clean your front doorstep so to speak and surage run down your streets and rivers, which is physical and easy, how on earth are you going to clean the air with carbon taxes.
5-The earth had not stop cooking from the inside either.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
20,790
So nothing substantial and it's even admitted the models aren't very accurate. But here's the kicker. They don't actually make any claims of predicting anything. They only fit the historical data. Now the claim is that they only fit when taking into account carbon levels but it's no surprise that when given enough data sets you can pick the ones that retroactively fit the models. It doesn't mean it's the cause. There's also models which very accurately match solar activity.

Also incorrect. You should probably not rely on 'pundits' for your information.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5
Well pundits is all it has going for it. Oh more predictions... like the ones of the last 20 years has been so accurate.

Nope. They mean different things and have both been used for a long time.
There's been a silent shift from warming to climate change. It's not both being used but one being phased out for the other. Look at the trend in published articled over the years.[/QUOTE]
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,217
Ah, convincing.
We have build nuclear plants, they provide emission free reliable power which you just plug into a grid and they do so for decades.

Good for off grid applications, environmentally expensive and far shorter shelf life than nuclear, integrates poorly into commercial grids

Pathetic eyesore on the landscape producing near as damnit 0% of the world's power. Environmental nightmare, and expensive to integrate into existing grids as it requires reliable (read fossil fuel) backup for when the wind doesn't blow.

hydro, geothermal
Brilliant, providing good clean energy for decades, problem is that potential sites are diminishing (new hydro has potential environmental issues) and geo thermal have very limited sites which can be applied to and there is a risk of over exploitation of existing sites.

, bioenergy,
is fast becoming an excuse to burn down forests...……

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking how we can know that energy sources that produce less greenhouse emissions will help in lowering the amount of greenhouse emissions?
it's not just a case of switching power sources, the proposals stretch far beyond that and even official reports offer a very low level of uncertainty that they will have any climate mitigation effect. What they most certainly do make the poor even poorer and leave then even less prepared to deal with climate change.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,200
So nothing substantial and it's even admitted the models aren't very accurate. But here's the kicker. They don't actually make any claims of predicting anything. They only fit the historical data. Now the claim is that they only fit when taking into account carbon levels but it's no surprise that when given enough data sets you can pick the ones that retroactively fit the models. It doesn't mean it's the cause. There's also models which very accurately match solar activity.
It's actually quite substantial, and in many cases they were too conservative, with warming happening even faster.

Swa said:
Well pundits is all it has going for it. Oh more predictions... like the ones of the last 20 years has been so accurate.
Well, yeah. Denier pundits should stop doing it then.

Swa said:
There's been a silent shift from warming to climate change. It's not both being used but one being phased out for the other. Look at the trend in published articled over the years.
No, there hasn't. They mean different things, and have both been used for a long time in different contexts.

We have build nuclear plants, they provide emission free reliable power which you just plug into a grid and they do so for decades.
That's nice. They're also horrendously expensive and take a very long time to build. The only plant under construction in the US has seen its cost balloon from US$7.3bn to US$27bn, and was started in 2009, to be online in 2016. It's now 'projected' to maybe open in 2022.

So as I said, keep them open as long as possible, but I remain unconvinced that it's primary solution.

alloytoo said:
Good for off grid applications, environmentally expensive and far shorter shelf life than nuclear, integrates poorly into commercial grids
25-30 years per panel is pretty good. And a lot easier and cheaper to decommission and replace than dying nuclear plants.

alloytoo said:
Pathetic eyesore on the landscape producing near as damnit 0% of the world's power. Environmental nightmare, and expensive to integrate into existing grids as it requires reliable (read fossil fuel) backup for when the wind doesn't blow.
Near as damnit being 6/7% and not 0%? With the potential to scale up to 20%?

How are they an "environmental nightmare"?

alloytoo said:
Brilliant, providing good clean energy for decades, problem is that potential sites are diminishing (new hydro has potential environmental issues) and geo thermal have very limited sites which can be applied to and there is a risk of over exploitation of existing sites.
[citations needed]

Besides, nuclear also has huge potential environmental issues. Neither of which come anywhere close to the horrible environmental cost of fossil fuels, of course.

alloytoo said:
is fast becoming an excuse to burn down forests...……
[citation needed]

alloytoo said:
it's not just a case of switching power sources, the proposals stretch far beyond that and even official reports offer a very low level of uncertainty that they will have any climate mitigation effect. What they most certainly do make the poor even poorer and leave then even less prepared to deal with climate change.
Yes, exactly. A low level of uncertainty, i.e. a high degree of certainty.

What proposals are you talking about?
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,217
That's nice. They're also horrendously expensive and take a very long time to build. The only plant under construction in the US has seen its cost balloon from US$7.3bn to US$27bn, and was started in 2009, to be online in 2016. It's now 'projected' to maybe open in 2022.
I'd be very curious as to how quickly the Chinese are able to install them, look to them establishing a bench marks

25-30 years per panel is pretty good. And a lot easier and cheaper to decommission and replace than dying nuclear plants.
Realistically 10-15 years with reducing performance as they grow older.

Near as damnit being 6/7% and not 0%? With the potential to scale up to 20%?
capacity is not the same as production and wind farms produce about 35% of their capacity on a good day then global supply is about 0%.
Given that wind can never be "on demand" and that it requires on demand (normally fossil fuel powered) generation to back it for when the wind stops. Wind is only good for pumping water off the grid and I'm not so sure about that.

How are they an "environmental nightmare"?
You mean aside from the thousands of birds and bats they kill, the eyesore they create? The fossil fuels required to actually make them practical.

For the most part hydro schemes require water and a valley to dam, these are not always available where you need the power.

Geothermal plants also require water and can be subject to over exploitation if everyone is attempting to same resource, the water table drops and the steam required for generation is no longer available.

Bioenergy is touted as a zero carbon energy source because you're burning material which can be regrown?

It's apparently the latest craze in Europe when the sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing, all it really means is burning wood chips as apposed to a fossil fuel and everyone knows that a tree takes a lot longer to grow than to burn.


A low level of certainty, a high degree of uncertainty.

it's more cost effective to plough money into certainties like vaccinations (or nuclear power plants).
 
Top