What's going to change in a Earth that's 8c hotter?

[Estebonrober]

I can't say I am a big fan of a document that regularly mentions the words "suggest", "suggesting", "most likely", "uncertainties", "likelihood", "begs the question", or "assumptions" among others and not be deemed bumptious.



The main reason why there are still large areas with trees especially in Europe and North America is because of the use of coal that otherwise would have led to more trees being burnt en-masse. Coal was the savior on that occasion, the ignorant Greeny won't admit to this though, it hurts their ego too much....

I’m a “greenie”. It’s been definitional politically for me for decades. I acknowledge this fact. Switching to natural gas over coal was another good and big step in reducing emissions and buying time to get renewable tech up and going.

We are there now and the next large scale infrastructure project should be establishing renewables New Green Deal style. There is no excuse not to anymore. All that’s happening now is a small subset of humanity is trashing the planet a little longer so they can be a little richer. It’s dumb. Like epic level dumb.

 

[Estebonrober]

Without power you're basically pissing in the wind.

Even now most Democrats can't figure out why and how they lost to Trump.

It is hard to comprehend how stupid people can vote stupidly for this level of stupidity.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is hard to comprehend how stupid people can vote stupidly for this level of stupidity.

For Trump?

 

[El_Machinae]

The main reason why there are still large areas with trees especially in Europe and North America is because of the use of coal that otherwise would have led to more trees being burnt en-masse. Coal was the savior on that occasion, the ignorant Greeny won't admit to this though, it hurts their ego too much....

Well, we will want to use natural gas in order to transition from fossil fuels. We certainly cannot let ourselves transition back to coal once the NG boom ends. We will need the transition before then ...

 

[Imaus]

I can't say I am a big fan of a document that regularly mentions the words "suggest", "suggesting", "most likely", "uncertainties", "likelihood", "begs the question", or "assumptions" among others and not be deemed bumptious.



The main reason why there are still large areas with trees especially in Europe and North America is because of the use of coal that otherwise would have led to more trees being burnt en-masse. Coal was the savior on that occasion, the ignorant Greeny won't admit to this though, it hurts their ego too much....

Thus why I dug into that map. It's the most wild one and has nothing supporting it. But it's so...DESERT, that I want to look into it more....

Related to that, I came across this post; explaining that even if Humanity puts the brakes on pumping Co2 into the climate by 2100, it's already going to fudge up the millennium, if on a slower, gradual scale. West Antarctica might still be colonized and the sea will rise 4m.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well, we will want to use natural gas in order to transition from fossil fuels. We certainly cannot let ourselves transition back to coal once the NG boom ends. We will need the transition before then ...

I was rather hoping the last 20 years had been us transitioning from using coal. The next 20 years should be us rapidly transitioning from NG to renewables with fusion remaining in the unforeseeable future like all unicorn technologies.

 

[Perfection]

Goodbye Eggnog Hello Christmas Margaritas

 

[Modder_Mode]

I’m a “greenie”. It’s been definitional politically for me for decades. I acknowledge this fact. Switching to natural gas over coal was another good and big step in reducing emissions and buying time to get renewable tech up and going.

We are there now and the next large scale infrastructure project should be establishing renewables New Green Deal style. There is no excuse not to anymore. All that’s happening now is a small subset of humanity is trashing the planet a little longer so they can be a little richer. It’s dumb. Like epic level dumb.

Well, we will want to use natural gas in order to transition from fossil fuels. We certainly cannot let ourselves transition back to coal once the NG boom ends. We will need the transition before then ...

I'm big on nuclear power, it should have been done on a bigger scale a long time ago, whether you think man made climate change is real or not and would like cheap reliable energy its a very viable option.

Estebonrober, being a Greeny I already know what your answer to this will be

 

[Estebonrober]

I'm big on nuclear power, it should have been done on a bigger scale a long time ago, whether you think man made climate change is real or not and would like cheap reliable energy its a very viable option.

Estebonrober, being a Greeny I already know what your answer to this will be

Yea I support nuclear power, but again it should not get in the way of wind and solar when and where they are completely viable(like solar on every home). All hands on deck approach. You should really stop making assumptions about your political adversaries.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nuclear power is politically unacceptable here

Pragmatically Fukushima 2.0.Earthquakes.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Nuclear power is politically unacceptable here

Pragmatically Fukushima 2.0.Earthquakes.

Fukushima would have never happened had the backup station been built above sea level, the subsequent Tsunami flooding caused major problems, it was the one design feature they never thought of which is strange for the Japanese as they are not often complacent.

Nuclear power is perfectly safe, as long as the station is built in countries that have stable democratic governments.

 

[Gorbles]

Fukushima Daiichi was an example of a reactor surviving beyond any worst-case scenario, and it still didn't inflict catastrophic damage on its surroundings. To use it as an example of nuclear power being unpalatable is silly.

 

[Ferocitus]

I believe in it, I just think we're to useless and self absorbed as a species to do much about it.

And ridiculously delusional to think humanity will last forever, let alone several more thousand years.

 

[Estebonrober]

Newer models of reactors do not require power to stay safe. No new reactor should be built that requires power to stay safe.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm big on nuclear power, it should have been done on a bigger scale a long time ago, whether you think man made climate change is real or not and would like cheap reliable energy its a very viable option.

I encourage you to either become credentialed on the topic, so that your voice means more, or to start a savings pool that allows you to invest in projects as they appear. We need your help speeding the transition

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Fukushima Daiichi was an example of a reactor surviving beyond any worst-case scenario, and it still didn't inflict catastrophic damage on its surroundings. To use it as an example of nuclear power being unpalatable is silly.

It's the opposite. After Chernobyl every nuclear disaster combined can't touch the harm to people + environment caused by more conventional power sources. Nuclear's track record is pretty good.

The main knock on nuclear is what to do with the waste, but new tech is making even that more practical. No reason to eschew other useful tech like wind/solar/etc and improving batteries but the stigma on nuclear is ridiculous.

And ridiculously delusional to think humanity will last forever, let alone several more thousand years.

My guess is that if humanity manages not to destroy itself and continue as conscious entities, that "human" "bodies" would look very different in 1k years. One way to beat human nature is to change humanity. Might turn out to be the only way.

 

[Socrates99]

This was a very interesting video made by a former geologist who writes for a science journal. Hes a little dry but moves through topics quickly so it doesn't really get boring. He goes through each geological age and explains the theories of how climate change happened in each age with brief summaries of each one.

This discussion reminded me of the video because he points out how brief on a geological timescale our current age will be if we allow anthropomorphic climate change to progress. He also points out that humans were never likely to be eternal but we are speeding up the inevitable. He points out that in the distant future when another intelligent species inhabits Earth its geologists will be able to see the records of all the ages before and after humans. Ours will be very short in comparison and the geologic explanations for changes in previous ages won't be available for ours.

Before anyone calls potholer54 an alarmist, he is talking on a grand scale time wise where millenniums barely register. We aren't necessarily killing the next generation or even the one after that but we are depriving humanity and the majority of concurrently existing species of many generations that should exist in the future but won't.

I subscribed to his channel quite a while ago because he does very good debunks of a lot of the pseudoscience on either side of the aisle. A lot of his other videos are actually entertaining because they're often dripping with sarcasm.

 

[Zardnaar]

Fukushima Daiichi was an example of a reactor surviving beyond any worst-case scenario, and it still didn't inflict catastrophic damage on its surroundings. To use it as an example of nuclear power being unpalatable is silly.

Nuclear power is very unacceptable here, political suicide etc. It's a cultural thing and in any event we can generate our power with renewables anyway.

Dates from the 80s when we opposed USA ships visiting if they had nuclear power or weapons onboard.

Since USA refuses to confirm or deny it functionally banned all US military ships from our ports.

I think they let one in a few years ago since post cold war they don't have nukes on most ships.

If the current government tried to build a nuclear reactor it would likely collapse and election time.

 

[Gorbles]

I understand it's political. I still think that's silly. Why should it be political, excepting a general lack of education on the lack of advantages of nuclear power? Is it not a government failing to rectify this?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I understand it's political. I still think that's silly. Why should it be political, excepting a general lack of education on the lack of advantages of nuclear power? Is it not a government failing to rectify this?

It would be a shame if government donors were displeased with the policies they implement.

So yes, it's a government failing. A systemic one, unfortunately.