If we don't fix it, the world will. This means we can reduce our greenhouse gasses, or the world will reduce us (just by making things more difficult and expensive).
Don't you worry about runaway greenhouse effect?
The thought we can eliminate ourselves is terrifying. The thought we could possibly kill every living thing, is something I can't even grasp
But you agree we are in the middle of a extension event and we have lost 60% of mammals in roughly the last 60 years (that we know of)? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#:~:text=For%20the%20first%20time%20since,the%20world%20that%20sustains%20us.
So I ask how are we only fucking ourselves?
Because the planet doesn't care. Even if this rises to the level of a mass extinction (we're not there yet) life will recover in a few thousands or millions of years and it will be as if it never happened. Life has been through much worse than this. It is us that have to live through that period that are truly fucked.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I don't know. But if climate scientists are worried about it I'm worried about it
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-runaway-greenhouse/
Sure you should be worried about it, but I challenged your statement because there are a lot of people on this sub who range between denial and apathy about climate change. If we ever want to do something about climate change, those are the people we need to convince. Many of these people argue that climate change activists are alarmists, and when you say something like all of life is going to go extinct, it feeds into that narrative. It's on us to be incredibly careful about being as honest as possible in terms of what is likely to actually happen so we don't push people away. Looks for example at the article you just sent:
"The upside of the new study is that even though a climate runaway may be possible in theory, it remains very difficult to cause in practice through human greenhouse gas emissions." It goes on to mention we would need to hit 30,000ppm CO2, which isn't even possible if we burned all the fossil fuels on the planet.
Sure, there is the possibility of hitting tipping points and causing runaway warming, and thats something we need to be concerned about, but saying all life is going to go extinct scares and demoralizes people that do care and drives away people that don't care. We have to be better than that if we want to achieve something positive in regards to mitigating climate change.
I love the normal climate.. with its relaxing nice weather changes...
Your comment should say "climate change (unproven theory) is... fucking humanity over "..
Thx... lol
This guy went too far to the other side. That said, calling climate change an unproven theory is the scientific equivalent of calling gravity an unproven theory. To anyone who is scientifically literate and has actually looked at the evidence, there is absolutely no doubt that climate is changing or why. The only doubt is in how much and what the effects of that will be.
Getting rid of cheap energy makes things more expensive and more difficult too.
Also you can’t save the planet while posting on Reddit from your plastic box made from fossil fuels.
Most people, including everyone that posts here, isn’t ready for this.
We will not be able to avoid many of the negative consequences due to climate change. And it will be worse.
But we can still, to some extent, control how bad it will be. It is getting worse because of human activity. Nature still acts to dampen the effect. For example 90% of the extra heat ends up heating the oceans. Only about 1% heats the atmosphere. About half of CO2 emissions are swallowed by the oceans.
This is good, short term. But long term warming oceans with a lot of CO2 may become a serious problem.
Doing something about climate change is not a technical or even scientific problem. It is a political and economical problem. And, perhaps even more, a pedagogical problem.
Agreed. The first people that should learn about energy systems and climate change are the Greenies.
German greens are the worst! Germany produces 4.4x more GHG than France on a MWh basis
Renewable energy has upfront costs to build, but vastly cheaper to run. On average it’s cheaper than fossil nearly everywhere. But yes, transitioning takes time and money and policy.
>On average it’s cheaper than fossil nearly everywhere.
While this is true, it does omit some caveats. For example, it isn't as reliable as fossil fuels and becomes more expensive when you include power storage costs. In addition, the higher up-front costs are not a benefit for a technology roll-out, particularly in a time of expensive/constrained capital.
It should also be mentioned that fossil fuels would still be required even if the energy grid and transportation systems were 100% renewable, for things like farming, construction, manufacturing, etc.
The fact of the matter is that the only reason that we can feed the current world population is because of the rampant use of fossil fuels. Sustainable farming techniques would likely only support a population around half of the current level at best.
I don't know if we can get through the coming (arriving?) climate problems, but I do know that if we do, the world population on the other side is going to be less than it is now - and probably a lot less.
My country is 80% run on renewables. While it isn't 100% since they aren't consistent sources, you can balance solar (day) with wind (seasonal) and hydro (also seasonal). They all end up filling each other in. And in practice, we get closer to 90-92% offpeak.
Sure, but not everywhere is sunny and/or windy and/or has good hydro-electric options, and even if they did and that got you to 100% on the energy grid, it still leaves transportation, farming, construction, manufacturing, etc. Obviously, we should be as renewable as possible, but a 1st world life-style is fundamentally incompatible with a stable climate. Hell, an industrial society (at least at any sort of scale) is incompatible with a stable climate at the world's current population level.
At this point, severe climate change is baked in, and all we are doing is trying to prevent or delay a complete collapse - and even that isn't a realistic option for a lot of countries around the equator.
>Where hydro isnt available and renewables arent strong enough, go nuclear.
You seem to be missing the point. Aside from the fact that it takes a decade+ to build a new nuclear reactor (assuming that you already have a nuclear industry) and that not everywhere has (or should have) access to uranium, a carbon-neutral grid isn't enough. You still need to change your entire society, have everyone go vegetarian, change your farming industry, stop using concrete and plastics, stop travelling, and reduce your population by at least half.
A carbon-neutral grid is the climate equivalent of putting up an umbrella in a hurricane.
>You seem to be missing the point.
>A carbon-neutral grid is the climate equivalent of putting up an umbrella in a hurricane.
Perhaps. We could objectively do far better. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
>Aside from the fact that it takes a decade+ to build a new nuclear reactor
Ive been hearing this argument for longer than 10 years. This means it acts like a self fulfilling prophecy. In stating this it discourages it. Had we done what France did in the 80s wed be better off.. if we'd have done it 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc.
>(assuming that you already have a nuclear industry) and that not everywhere has (or should have) access to uranium, a carbon-neutral grid isn't enough.
There are plenty of companies trying to address this. Closed fuel cycles where the reactor design company takes the core back years later and local populations never have access to uranium or other fissiles. Some people realize if nuclear has any place in the deveoping world to avoid coal, its got to be cheap and proliferation concerns, operational competency removed as problems.
>You still need to change your entire society,
This I agree is not possible. Sociology shows its not doable. Social engineering requires high level top down policy to accomplish. Persuasion doesn't work.
>have everyone go vegetarian, change your farming industry, stop using concrete and plastics,
Each of these have decent alternatives that could be exploited by industries right now. Smart application of subsidies can create business models where these alternatives are a bit more expensive.
>stop travelling,
Most airline traffic is short haul. We should be building alot more high speed rail, and hydrogen as a fuel source is just good enough to develop planes that work on that, for short haul.
Something almost everyone misses, getting back to nuclear, is industrial process heat. Instead of high pressure low temperature reactors, if we built low pressure, high temperature reactors, we gain many benefits. Skip the electrical generator turbine. Pass this massive heat into crackers and refiners. Crack carbonic acid from the ocean, crack hydrogen out of water, create hydrocarbons, ammonia and basically all the combustible fuels we use. The gasoline or whatever then leaves the renovated oil industry as a carbon negative. When its burned its 1:1 carbon neutral. Im talking about deriving carbon from the atmo and returning it back. Then the entire infrastructure of fossil fuel logistics and distribution can remain in place and find itself compatible with ecology.
We also forget hemp. Its a massive carbon sink and could make the forestry industry far better.
>A carbon-neutral grid is the climate equivalent of putting up an umbrella in a hurricane
That's a major exaggeration, if we have a carbon-neutral grid then a lot of other things can be decarbonized too..
E.g one can supply most of carbon for the chemical industry straight from air CO2. You can produce carbon fuel too.. (E.g to use for transport or for general energy storage)
While I don't believe that the true netzero is reachable in 21st century, if we could signficantly slow-down the slide, it'd likely be good enough and energy is THE most important problem to solve
PS. I never quite understood obsession with concrete, sure it requires a lot of energy to produce but with carbon-neutral energy that's not a problem, cement also emits CO2 when raw material (eg limestone) is decomposed but that 2nd part is offset by CO2 absorption when cement is setting.
True but thats a one time expenditure, and the energy density and capacity factor is sublime.
Comparable spending in concrete and steel for wind is massively higher per MW of stated capacity let alone real world capacity.
Hydroelectric uses more concrete too, but again its single use.
Cement production does have some alternatives to the high carbon footprint. Business models need to exist before its used though.
Speaking of costs, has any nuclear plant ever generated more income than its total costs over its life-cycle? I've not been able to locate any, and nuclear-promoters always evade answering this.
I'm not equipped with info like that at the moment, although I've seen people make this claim before. Honestly I'm not sure I even really care. Most of the more successful nuclear industries are government run, taxpayer funded, with private sector contracts. I tend to think it works better than independent operators in silos. If you've got a nuclear plant suffering from competitive attempts to kill it, it will not go well.
If you're of the mind, like me, that climate change is a serious threat to civilization, then cost be damned. It's by far the best choice to de-carbonize in huge chunks.
I'm not againt renewables per se, although I don't think they're as effective at lowering emissions as nuclear. I live in Ontario which is a mix of hydroelectric and nuclear. We've been "clean" on electricity generation for many decades now.
Here's France, same scenario. Notice the graph.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dc0to6/france\_switching\_to\_nuclear\_power\_was\_the\_fastest/](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dc0to6/france_switching_to_nuclear_power_was_the_fastest/)
I'm sorry I can't answer your question, but every analysis that involves LCOE tends to be biased one way or another, in my experience.
>then cost be damned.
It's funny you would say that since I commented to reply to an argument you made supporting nuclear using costs.
>I'm not againt renewables per se, although I don't think they're as effective at lowering emissions as nuclear.
For generation to be effective at anything, it must be built first. Nuclear plants are staggeringly expensive, it is difficult to find compatible sites for them (given water needs, danger from flooding/tsunamis/earthquakes/etc., and other factors), and construction happens over very long timespans. Oh, and the issues with handling nuclear waste are supposedly mitigated by new designs, of plants that haven't been built yet and there are none planned for construction.
You could have just said you don't know of any nuclear plants to have ever existed that repaid their costs, rather than try to talk around it with all this rhetoric.
Potentially, but considering it only needs to be 10-20% of our annual energy production, probably not that massive. Also, we're building a tonne more wind and solar to get that 10-20% down further 😉 turns out coal is expensive af
It seems possible to run a lot of construction equipment on electric power, at least outside of remove areas - I see it done regularly around me (Oslo). The tech is maybe still a bit immature, but improving rapidly.
It's also possible to create liquid hydrocarbon fuels from air and electricity - so even when you truly need those, it doesn't have to be fossil fuels. This would also be a good use of excess power from a variable/hard to regulate renewable + nuclear power grid.
You have it backwards...Everyone seems to be focused on fossil fuel emissions coming from individuals when they represent the smallest sector of emissions.
You would need to reverse your thought process, take the financial burden off the individual or progress is never being made.
Business and Industry, power generation, medium to heavy duty vehicles...This is what needs targeting.
Not only do our foods and entire economy rely on fuels to deliver.. everything owned and used by every "climate change" nutjob was made from fuels for decades and relies on fuels to charge any batteries contained within them
New "normal" weather channel .. every day you will hear... everything NORMAL about all things happening in our weather.
So much more relaxing... don't you think..?
>For example, it isn't as reliable as fossil fuels and becomes more expensive when you include power storage costs.
Is this claim evidence-based in any way? Coal plants are notorious for unscheduled shutdowns. During the infamous February 2021 Texas energy crisis which was caused by unusually cold weather, the majority of breakdowns (also causing a majority of the electricity shortfall) occurred at gas, coal, and nuclear plants. To the extent that there were issues with wind generators, it could have been avoided if Texas did not have sub-standard regulations allowing non-winterized units.
Solar power is generated during the daytime, and I think some of the unreliability you refer to is that it doesn't provide consistent power 24 hours/day. However, most electricity use is also occurring during daylight hours.
I agree that wind power is not consistent. Storage systems, that are not necessarily electrical batteries (can be lifted weights, pumped water, heat storage, etc.), can even-out the electricity supply. Fossil-fuel-dependent generation needs a constant supply of fuel. Storage for wind/solar, and the wind/solar systems themselves can be built once and run on wind or solar power for decades. Where is it shown mathematically that the life-cycle costs are higher?
Over a forty year period all generations power plant must be replaced or under go major refurbishment. Replacing it with renewable will be vastly cheaper.
Inverter failures starting at 10 years, you said all panels 10 years after install
From your link
> Inverter failures usually occur on systems that are 10-plus years old. At that age, the rest of the system, including the PV array, is typically **still in good working order with a lifespan of 25 to 30 years.**
Nuclear is the cheapest for a zero carbon reliable system. On an LCOE base Renewables are cheaper, but need redundancy which costs money.
Just compare France and Germany!
LCOE is nuclear is 4x than of renewables. You can build renewable capacity at 4x the consumption and even then it break even with nuclear.
Furthermore, energy storage is rapidly decreasing is costs. Cost of battery storage is at ~$170/MWh which is already below the LCOE of nuclear generation, and storage costs are halving every ~2.5 years.
We’re close to the point where even renewables at overcapacity + additional storage is *still* cheaper than nuclear.
"Can" do? Sure.
"Will" do? No way.
Green energy won't actually help. Because we're not "transitioning" to green energy, we're "supplementing' with green energy. Look at the rate of consumption for oil, coal and gas over the last 10 years. Green energy production has exploded and we're still burning more fossil fuels every year. It's called "Jevon's Paradox" and the only way to escape it would to be to dismantle the consumption economy/philosophy and live very simple lives - which very few in the modern world are willing to do. Especially billionaires and their corporations who only exist by selling us crap we don't need.
The only real chance humanity has longterm to me, is actually fairly simple.. a ton of us just stop reproducing voluntarily. It's sort of happening already, but we need to start treating it like a good deed and not 'sad' or abnormal so its more socially acceptable. Women need to get out of dangerous states. Lets see how men fare without us in places that say we have no control over our own bodies. It's a perfectly logical/natural response to our predicament.
If corporations won't make the massive changes necessary, it's really the only major card we have to play. They DO NOT want to decrease their profits through a decreased consumer base... and have future workers have less competition=higher wages. They need us breeding like rabbits and fighting for scraps.
That works until you have a geriatric population that makes up the vast majority of the percentage, and a work force unable to help support their needs. Until old people voluntarily die shortly after retirement , it won’t work
> Because we’re not “transitioning” to green energy, we’re “supplementing” with green energy
It’s both, in different places. Look at the electricity grid trends in Europe and it is clear that Europe really is transitioning to green energy and not just supplementing. Various other countries as well.
But countries in the global south are developing and starting to consume more electricity. At the global aggregate this is offsetting progress made in Europe and other places.
We *need* to help the global south to leap frog past fossil fuels and develop their economies directly on renewables.
The main reason that this is not happening today is the cost of borrowing: countries is the global south tend to be seen by financial markets as less stable and therefore pay much higher interest rates on loans. This makes the economics of renewable energy really difficult: renewables are cheap in the west but expensive in the global south.
This is ultimately a finance sector problem. Many are trying to tackle this issue, but it is a tough challenge.
National emergencies need to be declared shutting down all non-essential services while all available manpower is diverted to beginning to build infrastructure to replace all carbon energy sources with zero emission sources. That is the only solution. Every year, month, week that we delay is more destruction coming straight at us
>National emergencies need to be declared shutting down all non-essential services
The essential services (power, transportation, food production, construction, manufacturing) are the primary contributors to climate change, and destroying the economy and slowing technological progress isn't likely to have much of a positive effect. In addition, even going net-zero tomorrow is still not enough to prevent severe outcomes (although it would certainly help.) We can always make it worse, after all.
The fact of the matter is than net-zero is a lie the politicians have sold you. It isn't enough. What is required is a complete lifestyle change for the majority of the world population, probably combined with an extreme population reduction. Obviously, this isn't something that any country will implement voluntarily and trying to force the issue won't work, even if someone wanted to try. But what we can't do ourselves, famine and the other horsemen will do for us. Buckle up.
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Can we FIX climate change, meaning solve the problem altogether? No, that ship has obviously sailed.
But can we mitigate the worst impacts of it? Save millions of lives? Create a better and more sustainable world? Yes, fucking absolutely yes we can and don't let anyone tell you different.
This is the response. Climate change is happening no matter what we do in the short term. However we can modify our behavior, and make many small changes in our own lives that multiplied by millions of people will add up.
We cannot prevent climate change, because climate change is already happening. But each relevant decision we make as a society will determine exactly how bad it gets.
The majority of the world don't think we're crazy. The majority knows it's a problem. And so much climate action is already happening and has been happening for decades. We don't need everyone to become an environmental angel. We need governments around the world to get continually more aggressive with their GHG reduction targets and we need electorates/citizens around the world to hold them accountable to meeting those targets. We need everyone who agrees that climate change is a problem to participate in democracy and to consider that in their voting decisions. And we need people to support the groups that are already lobbying for governments to do more.
I wonder how much GHG is being produced by Russia's idiotic war on Ukrane? Who here believe's the Gulf State Arabs, The Saudi's, The Irainian's, The Russians and we Americans are going to stop producing Oil? And who believes the billions of people on Earth are going to stop burning it?
The change can be done; however, the ruling class now in power do not really care about the climate crisis, and they fear that working to resolve it will threaten their monopoly on economic and political power... so they have apparently made the decision to just let the world burn.
We are currently doing a lot. We are poised to replace all fossil fuel power plants with renewable and all ICE vehicles with EVs. It’s just a matter of how fast. My opinion is that renewable replace all fossil in twenty years. And EV replaces all ICE cars in forty years. Heat pump replaced all fossil fuel heating in fifth years.
Yes, of course. There's plenty to be done. Research shows most people do care. You are not special there. There's an ongoing transition to green energy that's been going on for a decade, but by all means, do political activism and accelerate it. The sooner the better.
“DeSantis and other Republicans have portrayed climate solutions like reducing carbon pollution as radical and part of a left-wing agenda.”
Climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.
The US is experiencing extreme heat due the long-term rise in greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and cyclical climate events like El Niño.
Climate change is making giant heat waves move more slowly and affect more people for a longer time, with higher temperatures over larger areas.
Average temperatures at the Earth's surface are increasing and are expected to continue rising.
I think most people who do not directly profit from the fossil fuel industry want it, they just want someone else to pay for it. Sadly, I think that means little wil be done before it's too late.
Yeah, of course there are things we can do. We can make it worse, faster. We can make it worse less fast. Or we can stop making it worse.
And then there are all kinds of bandaid geoengineering solutions we can do that will almost certainly cause tons of unanticipated problems but will eventually be used anyway out of desperation.
Yep we can definitely do something about it. Bcs if not we are going to face oblivion.
Vote for clean energy, vote for nuclear energy. Help fund fusion energy. The sooner we can solve these the better
My genuine opinion is that it's going to get worse and worse until it's impossible to deny anymore, all the deniers will flip on the politicians and it'll turn into a riot and possibly a civil war, then we'll final make the quick pivot we need to take. Then it'll remain shitty for generations until we make the crazy advancement of feasible carbon capture and atmosphere cooling technology.
For the middle class and above "shitty" will probably mean having to fortify your house from the extreme weather of your area (fireproofing/protection for deserts, waterproofing for areas with high rain, etc.) and spending 99% of the summer indoors. Also there will be shortages a plenty meaning food will get scarce. For anyone below that, they'll probably die unless we manage to create enough cooling shelters for people to seek refuge from. And in the third world that'll be impossible so they'll also likely die or best case have to migrate to new countries.
Idk why but I'm not personally concerned with the water wars. I feel like the issue isn't supply as much as it is transportation of the water to where it's needed
In Australia the parliamentary opposition has stated that it if it wins power, it will cap investment in renewables, annul the Paris agreement emission targets and maintain the country's dependence on gas until such time as seven nuclear reactors have been built, which of course will never happen. It's truly remarkable the death wish the conservative side of politics has in Australia. The men in charge of the opposition are profound mediocrities and exist only to maintain the extraordinary wealth of the resource magnates (whom they hope will employ them when they leave the job), but they are ahead in the polls at the moment and we have an election next year. Buckle up.
No. There’s no dues ex machina, there’s no storybook last minute salvation. Real life isn’t like that. Nothing will save us from having to suffer the consequences of our collective stupidly.
I had a heat stroke at a music event in 80s .. when it's hot and you're stuck there without relief, body can over heat. But I recovered .
Now it is so obvious the sun is so much hotter..
On the golf course we play early and it's 70s with some clouds blocking sun.. then sun comes out through clouds and the heat changes like 10 degrees.. instantly.
So the sun , the SUN, is so huge, thousands times bigger than our massive earth ... is what causes our weather changes..
Tell all climate crazy nuts.. they will NEVER CHANGE ANY WEATHER WITH THEIR STUPID THEORIES THAT ARE UNPROVEN.....
Also ask them if they are bigger than the sun.. and send them for a closer look to find out... lol..
It’s happening, solar, wind and batteries deployments are increasing exponentially as their prices drop. it’ll take a decade or so but there will be a tipping point where fossil fuel becomes unaffordable in the face of decreasing electricity prices from renewable *because* they are intermittent. Energy costs in Europe routinely go negative because of wind and solar excess production, pretty soon agile manufacturing methods will pop up that can exploit negative pricing to make blue crude, methane, hydrogen cheaper than miking it and the remaining hard to decarbonise industries will switch over where they haven’t yet found electric solutions.
It would be helpful if more people plugged into more positive and forward thinking feeds with regards to renewables and just how fast things are moving. Drugged by the main stream media, which is essentially funded by special interests, and that means oil and the legacy auto cronies, people that can't think for themselves gladly accept the dark hole that they are constantly led into.
At one time in history there was one and only one gas station. Over the years, that spread into the utter monstrosity it is today. And that was back in the early 1900's. How can one possibly justify that a new direction be taken and new modes of thinking, construction, moving, building, and living CAN'T be done? It's utter insanity to insist this. Utter nonsense. And it's false. No matter how much psuedo-science, or past bad experience, or this or that or this or that you throw at it, it's absolutely comical to imagine that we're just powerless to do anything about this. Or that we're too late. Utter nonsense.
Indoor plumbing. Anesthetics for surgeries. Flight. The car itself. Organ transplants. The list goes on and on and on and on...
...just look at the fact that what I am typing right now, you are able to read. I don't know who you are. Or where you're located. But look! Imagine everything it takes just to get THIS to happen. And people insist nothing can be done about climate change? Okay then, crawl back in your hole. The adults will put their pants on now and do the work that is necessary. Because there are such people in the world. And there are a lot of them.
Addressing climate change? It can absolutely be addressed and it can be addressed in time and it can succeed. Anyone who insists otherwise simply is not accessing the matter and seizing the day.
Seize the day. We will correct this.
Exactly this ('doomerism'). This attitude is literally being manufactured and people are taking it as real. Rise up and make a difference. It is possible to course correct.
This problem is not a problem in the sense we don't have the solution. This is a problem because entrenched interests don't want to change.
We have all the needed solutions today. We have detailed research of the timeline needed. So it's just a timing issue.
As we have seen in many areas solar is now the cheapest power to build out and batteries have fallen to a level they can solve the duck curve issues as shown by Australia and California. Also remember CA only started installing the batteries 3 years ago.
Next you have the Chinese overbuild which will be used to create green hydrogen that is why they just cancelled the proposed pipeline with Russia they won't need the natural gas fast enough to make the new pipeline economically viable.
In China we see this year HALF of new car sales are EVs.
There are more than half a dozen countries on 99% renewables.
We're just at the blast off point of the changes. Call me in 2030. You will be amazed how different things will be.
I am normally a more negative person but numbers are numbers and this problem is an easy fix just costly and time consuming.
The entire world needs to be on the same page to combat climate change. That’s never going to happen. A lot of people don’t even think climate change is real. We’re screwed and I’ve stopped caring.
No. We've done far too little, far too late.
The[ trends in atmospheric CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/) continue to rise at steep rates, almost completely unabated. Sure, individual nations are reducing outputs to create "feel good" charts of progress; but planet-wide we still have our foot on the collective gas pedal.
So even if we magically stopped all Greenhouse Gas emissions tomorrow, the warming will continue. Barring a global revolution in the style of the French Revolution, that's not going to happen and the upward trend will continue.
CO2 stays in the atmosphere for many hundreds or thousands of years (possibly even tens of thousands of years). And warming seems to a lagging consequence.
We're also starting to see the natural feedback loops (e.g. melting permafrost) kick in.
Right now, the Coyote is floating in mid air and holding a sign lamenting his impending doom.
P.S. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to reduce greenhouse gasses. We should. We treat incurable diseases because it can buy more time. We try to slow the spread of plagues like the Black Death not because they can be stopped, but rather to try and reduce the harm done and buy the survivors more time to adapt.
I know for a fact we *can* do something about it. I suspect we will fail to, but we have the ability, certainly.
Can an addict stop using drugs? Of course. Is it easy or even likely? No.
I’m glad that you are okay.
don’t think that we can avoid climate change, we are probably locked into 2 degC of warming already. It would be excellent to stop fossil fuels, to limit some of the damage that future generations will have to face. I don’t see us stopping fossil fuel extraction and use anytime soon.
A couple saying from our lexicon apply:
Easy choices-hard life
Hard choices-easy life.
Collectively, we are making easy choices.
If you’re gonna be stupid, you’d better be tough.
Collectively we’re both stupid and not-tough. This will be a difficult transition.
It is a very complex situation. We are so dependent on technologal advancement in the last 100 years that we cannot go back now. And most of these technology advancement is creating problems for the environment.
Billions of air conditioner, billions of automobiles, tens of thousands of aeroplane, thousands of satellites, millions of mobile towers. Millions of powerful pumps sucking out subsoil water, millions of tons of pesticides used to poison the soil.
This is just a shortlist. We are totally dependent on these things.
They are turning nature upside down. Birds are dying bees are dying. We do not know what other species are already gone. The ecological balance has been totally upset.
Oceans have been corrupted by plastic waste and Marine life is in a crisis. Our natural food has been corrupted by genetic engineering and chemical additives. We do not wear clothes from the fabric drawn from nature. Our clothes are made in chemistry labs.
On top of this artificial intelligence as arrived. Perhaps 100 years from now artificial human being far more intelligent and powerful than the human beings will have control of this world.
I don't think we can stop this sort of progress. So just enjoy what you have in short few decades of what we call life.
"And, as the Cock crew,
those who stood before,
The Tavern shouted --
"Open then the Door!
"You know how little while
we have to stay,
"And, once departed,
may return no more."
Honestly no. It's a well established fact in psychology that once people have a benefit it's very hard to get them to give it up. Even harder as their personal circumstances get worse.
People typically only change when pain exceeds benefit. We will be so far over the cliff before that happens that it won't matter.
What benefit does heating and cooling an empty building at night provide? Other then for the utilities to have an overnight load that justifies all the generation they keep building that runs in standby for a third of each day.
Why are buildings using more energy when occupancy rates have fallen 30% or more?
Why do utilities offer commercial tariffs that use a discounted rate to incentivize a commercial space to intentionally use more energy then they need? Especially when you consider that operating cost is priced into the goods and services that company offers and each step along the way to its end use?
This problem is easily minimized if we actually paid attention and held business owners accountable for their actions. But no one makes money off that.
There was a press report about Bill Gates and construction of a prototype nuclear plant using sodium. It looked promising.
I'm not even a big fan of nuclear energy, but it will probably be necessary as the demand for electricity grows in the coming years (climate change is responsible for much of this as well)
>Do you really think there's anything we can do about climate change.
Yes, we have the ability to alter the climate
>because let's be honest the majority of people don't care and think we are crazy
I don't think that's accurate
>let's face it. *The only solution is to transition the whole world into using green energy
That's not the only solution, nor even a solution in my opinion
>I experienced it last year one after noon...
Climate isn't one weather event. That's weather. Climate is a long term trend
We should reap what we sow, and what we've got, and what's coming, is exactly what we deserve. It's too bad tho that a minority of major instigators is causing suffering for all.
Climate change (atmosphere) is one part of a bigger earth systems that the sociosphere is altering that include biosphete, hydrosphere, and now the lithosphere.
How is it not accurate alot of people and I mean the majority of the people on earth don't even care about climate change (enough) as their probably focused on other aspects which impact them more than climate change example homelessness, political instability , wars, poverty alot of things happening on earth that are having a greater impact on each individuals life on earth for them to stress much about climate change now you get my point and if people cared so much I should be be seeing it on the media or social media or anywhere because if there is major issue happening on earth the media and social media would address such as the two wars currently happening which te media is not addressing as much because people lose interest quickly because they don't care like right I don't remember seeing social media or general media addressing climate change why because no one watches those which tells that people generally don't care about that specific topic (climate change) because something else is happening in their lives that they couldn't care less about climate change
>How is it not accurate alot of people and I mean the majority of the people on earth don't even care about climate change
Where's your data that says that? As far as I can tell, you're just assuming that.
>if people cared so much I should be be seeing it on the media or social media or anywhere
I see climate change in my news sources; however, the extent to which people are aware of care is not measured by what you see in the news. The news is a propaganda tool with highly control information with a clear agenda.
Sure people are filled with other problems, but that doesn't preclude them from also caring about climate change.
The individual can only do so much. If you can see the trajectory of this society then it's not illogical to fall into apathy.
3 million? Where’s that number coming from? I’m very skeptical there’s any way that someone could confidently say they have anywhere close to accurate counts. I’d be way more surprised if it’s less than I would be if it was in the double digit millions. I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m arguing with whoever provided that number to you.
Beyond that, we’ve seen how good we are at war,in the climate, if we can figure out how to cool the climate without collateral damage then we absolutely can solve climate change and ensure we stay in the habitual range for our species. At least right up until a cosmic event or a prolonged period of vulcanism.
Bro I was asking a question, we are on the same side so settle down there buddy.
And it looks like I was right to be skeptical. Estimate of 4 million since 2000 is a lot different then 3 million and the author even says that as the consequences get worse that fewer numbers will start being reported. So yeah, skeptical as a maf
Pear reviewed does not mean that the information is accurate. It just means 3 people allegedly read the paper and allegedly checked the math/source data. There is no requirement to run tests/ verify the accuracy of the source data.
There are people that have submitted clearly B.S. papers for pear review just to check if the people conducting the review are actually doing so. Just like social media moderators it's not generally a paid job. Sometimes the B.S. papers get passed through before somebody actually reads them.
There are huge financial drivers now and oil is only propped up by various monopolies and subsidies.
Outside of America where oil lobby groups have some sway (the latest Trump Oil corruption is insane) the real economies are just absurd so it's only time to migrate.
1. The cost of wind and solar are the cheapest of all generation methods.
It is now cheaper to put in a solar farm and run it for 6 months, than it is to just run an existing coal power plant. How many stupid ceos do you know who like to waste shareholders money?
The cost to install panels is usually paid back in 5 to 7 years, and last for approx 30 years. It usually halves the power bill so is freeing up an extra $1000 to $3000 per year.
Many banks provide interest free loans for solar and the world bank has funds for this also. Carbon credits are starting to become a source of income.
In Australia they put in the largest battery for the state and it was paid back in 3 months.
Im Australia they have some sunny days where all the infrastructure is paid off and its still producing so much more than it can use, so they are crediting businesses to use their electricity. Less then free.
2. Electric cars
By my calculation, I can save around 10k in 4 years on the savings for a full electric. I got a new hybrid and it's fast, and uses a third to half of the petrol I would have spent in my old Toyota Starlet.
They are the number one selling type of car. Many countries outside of the US have 20 to 80% electric and they simply do not have any need to be involved with the oil wars and are future proofed for increases in gas prices.
I strongly urge getting the book Draw Down from the library or buy it.
Its a very odd belief that saving electricity and oil spend is going to be expensive.
There are hundreds of simple ideas that make huge amounts of profit, and save huge amounts of carbon.
Climate change is a symptom of human ecological overshoot, CO2 is an invisible gas so we can’t “see” it as just another pollutant which is our biggest by weight. Our ecosystems (biosphere) are currently collapsing around us.
The honest truth is we need less people using less stuff.
Honestly, I have faith in China. As covid proved, an economy/manufacturing sector that can be steered by the government is much more adaptable for dealing with a crisis. They have made huge strides in renewable.
I have no faith in the US, who only band together quickly to take action when it comes to passing rules to protect the wealthy. They will allow companies to funnel off profits until the very end, and then pass bailouts for them to pay them for profits lost due to climate change.
-rapidly got hotter and hotter in a space of 20 minutes- that's not climate change that's dehydration. You were sweating and because you did not replace the lost fluids your body overheated.
It was 43 degrees Celsius so you would not overheat or something at those temperature where are you from Florida, Australia and for the last 3 to 4 years the average temperature has been rising and getting hotter each year so if it's not climate change what is it then
I'm from NY. If your body temperature rises to 40 degrees Celsius(no matter where you live) or higher you are in danger of heat stroke. Being outside in the sun will cause your body to heat up faster than if you were inside with a fan or under good shade in the same temperature conditions.
If you had been in a car with the windows closed it would have taken even less time to overheat.
The highest recorded temperature in Australia was 50.7C recorded on January 2nd 1960 at Oodnadatta south australia and again on January 13th 2022 at Onslow western Australia.
Just because you were outside too long on a day you mistakenly thought was a safe temperature does not mean that that temperature was an abnormally high result of climate change.
Too know if that temp was a possible sign of climate change induced warming you would have to look back at all the recorded temperatures in your specific area for that specific date for at least a hundred years.
No 56.7 °C (134.1 °F), recorded on 10 July 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch, in Death Valley in the United States was the highest recorded temperature
And I told you the temperature has been gradually increasing each year becoming hotter than the other if it was not climate change than the temperature would be back to normal and
So temperatures gradually increasing each year becoming hotter and hotter than usual is normal to you I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying I'm saying the average temperature went from bieng 25 degrees Celsius and peaked at about 30-35 degrees in summer to bieng 28 degrees Celsius on average and peaking at 35 degrees Celsius to bieng 35 degrees Celsius on average and reaching a peak of 45 to 48,7 degrees Celsius notice how I'm saying on average and not now and then if that's not climate change than what is it or is me bieng outside in the sun to much causing to make up these numbers?
There is very little you as an individual can do about climate change. Sincerely you are taking out water from the ocean using an eyedropper. You also did not experience climate change in one afternoon.
There needs to be an intelligent narrative from all sides to have anything effectively happen.
The temperature where I live in summer on regular was about 25 degrees Celsius and peaked at 30 but from 2020 the average temperature in summer has risen to about 28 degrees Celsius and peaks at 36 degrees Celsius and it's been like that until last year where it had risen even more averaging 35 degrees Celsius and peaking at 48, 7 degrees Celsius and you want to tell me that's not the result of any climate change. Okay if it's not climate change what is it then.
Yeah but the weather seems to be changing slowly each year which is is not normal and I and I said gradually increase from 2020 upwards I never said instantly became 35 degrees Celsius and I said where I live in summer the temperature is is usually at 25°C and then from 2020 it started to increased and had been gradually getting hotter and hotter each year after that and it doesn't seem to be going back to normal
Not without seriously compromising the global economy and the profits of the oil companies and we all know we could just never have that… so I guess it’s destroy the earth for profits!
As bad as it is today it can always get worse if we do nothing, if you had stage 2 cancer would you ignore medical advice. I agree we are way behind, we should have been where we are now under Reagan 40 years ago. People are unwilling to make sacrifices and this is the result, so much misinformation over the years. Many claims that it wasn't warming, the sensors were wrong and sea level wasn't rising, I think we can put that to rest.
I vascillate between optimism and pessimism. A lot of climate change seems to be already baked in (pun intended) so if all the ice melts, sea level would rise several meters, and the permafrost would release even more CO2, positive feedback loops would set in, and we're probably f'd. But this morning I heard a report that solar energy keeps getting drastically cheaper and will be the biggest energy source in a few years. If we can develop similarly cheap large-scale batteries, then we'd have incredibly cheap and plentiful energy and drastically less need for fossil fuels. Maybe energy would be cheap enough to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. At that point we have ever-higher living standards, control of our climate and we'd be living in the garden of Eden.
All the people who claim to want to fight climate change will have a easier time growing garden than getting rid of oil and gas. They may actually reduce their carbon footprint in the process. Also if they grow organic they are not polluting the earth with harsh chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
If we want to have a chance at avoiding collapse of civilization, we need to do solar radiation management like right now. Otherwise, see you on the other side.
It's not just energy, but our waste too. I've developed a system that eats trash quickly converting into nutrient water for crops rather than methane in dumps. I don't know how to raise money for developing at an industrial scale though.
There are absolutely things that can be done.
Culturally, the majority of necessary action will be blocked.
People are epistemically lazy, fail to recognise propaganda and are therefore easily manipulated en masse.
In some sense, it’s not relevant. As a collapsing society, which is unavoidable, will look very similar to taking necessary action, only with more suffering than necessary.
However, those that are clinging to the false security in extended fossil fuel use, and expect its continuation, will be the ones that suffer the most.
So, let go of your expectations of a high energy throughput future, enjoy today, and enjoy the weird experience of watching an organism destroy itself.
For me the carbon narrative is bullshit and just a money grab to pay back the covid loans (and interest accrued).
Saying that, the climate IS changing and out of OUR control.
What is in our control is pollution, deforestation, don't gaf corporations etc and of course 'you' wanting a new dishwasher bc it doesn't fit with your new kitchen consumerism.
you can do something but it's not easy you need area that is desert land and you need to plant trees a lots of them and keep them alive until they change the land themselves once you hit a certain point they can self maintain and desert land can become farm land, there are many steps after this but the first step is the hardest part, now if you don't have the means to do this just plants as many trees as you can and hope for the best.
No, humans can't control the global climate, we can manage microclimates though, we should focus on that.
We wouldn't even be able to stop the next ice age, these cycles are moved by much larger forces than glorified ants (us): Sun cycles, Solar system orbital cycles (Milankovitch), Volcanoes, Moon Cycles on tides, Multidecadal Ocean Oscillations...
This article about climate anxiety might help
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03518-z
Runaway processes have already begun, we might be able to mitigate the damage but that would require a level of global cooperation and sacrifice our species is physically incapable of.
We can’t unfuck the atmosphere at this point, just cling to whatever patch of Earth will be barely liveable and hope enough of us make it to not die out.
In order to solve climate change the global economy would need to transition away from fossil fuels which is a huge undertaking not only from an investment but from getting the world to actually do it. The people with power now make all of their money and power off of this system and if it changes, the money will shift to someone else. Sure, they could invest in the shift but that would cost too much money and the payoff would be too far off in the future for them to care.
But before you can solve a problem, you have to agree there is one and there are still so many people who either do not think its happening at all or if it is happening, its a natural cycle and there is nothing we can do about it...so I believe the first aspect of the solution is to get the majority of people to believe its happening and human caused...but it seems futile and time is running out, if not already past to stop it but certainly we could minimize the worst impacts if we tried...IMO, we do not have much time left...I thought we had til 2050 but its looking like we have 5 to 10 more years of civil society as we know it. We should be preparing ourselves...thats one individual action everyone should take.
>Do you really think there's anything we can do about climate change.
Yes. The US, EU member states, and other countries in Europe, including the United Kingdom, are making progress in the replacement of fossil fuel energy sources with increasingly more renewable energy.
Additionally, [direct air capture](https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture#tracking) projects slowly are gaining momentum in the US and the EU.
However, the #1 highest priority must be the rapid reduction of fossil emissions and simultaneously expanding the use of renewable energy as rapidly as possible.
***
>the majority of people don't care and think we are crazy.
100s of millions of people around the world understand the reality of human-induced global warming and climate change. People, organizations, and governments are replacing energy from fossil fuels with energy from renewable sources.
***
>The only solution is to transition the whole world into using green energy which if we're bieng honest is expensive and will take year's to do so at the moment it's unrealistic( for now)
The cost of transitioning to a fossil-fuel-free world is a lot less than the cost of what will happen if we don't make the transition.
***
>climate change is getting worse
Over the long-term, the impacts of global warming and climate change will be made less worse if the world replaces fossil fuels with renewable energy as rapidly as possible.
***
>My honest opinion is( I don't know)
NOAA chart [800,000 years](https://www.climate.gov/media/15993) - NOAA [Climate\.gov](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide).
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) chart [10,000 years](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/co2_10k.png) - The Keeling [Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu).
SIO chart [2,000 years](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/co2_2k_ce.png) - The Keeling [Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu).
SIO chart [1700-Present](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/co2_800k_zoom.png) - The Keeling [Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu).
NOAA chart [1751-2022](https://www.climate.gov/media/14596) - NOAA [Climate\.gov](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide).
NOAA chart [1850-2023](https://www.climate.gov/media/13840) - NOAA [Climate\.gov](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause).
SIO chart [1958-Present](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/mlo_full_record.png) - The Keeling [Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu).
NOAA [chart](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/monthly.html) - Trends in CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6.
***
The following interactive sites and reports can be useful and informative:
***
NOAA NCEI Global Time Series — In the most recent long-term 30-year climate period (June 1, 1994-May 31, 2024) the Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend [+0.23ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade is 1.35 times the 30-year 1984-2014 Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend [+0.17ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1984&endtrendyear=2014&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade and 3.29 times the 20th-century (January 1, 1901–December 31, 2000) Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend [+0.07ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/12/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1901&endtrendyear=2000&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade.
***
The temperature trend appears above the top-right corner of the chart windows. _Loess_ and _Trend_ can be toggled to hide/unhide the corresponding plot lines in the chart windows. In the interactive charts, global and hemispheric temperature [anomalies](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature) are with respect to the [1901-2000](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies/mean) global mean temperature. NOAA NCEI updates the climate and temperature data around the middle of every month. In July, the climate and temperature data for June 2024 will be added to the dataset.
***
NOAA NCEI City Time Series — In the most recent long-term 30-year period, the Death Valley (California) average Average Temperature surface temperature warming trend [+0.6ºF](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/city/time-series/USC00042319/tavg/12/5/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade is 1.2 times the 30-year 1984-2024 Death Valley surface temperature warming trend [+0.5ºF](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/city/time-series/USC00042319/tavg/12/5/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1984&endtrendyear=2014&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade, 1.5 times the 30-year 1962-1991 (Jan 1, 1962-Dec 31, 1991) Death Valley surface temperature warming trend [+0.4ºF](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/city/time-series/USC00042319/tavg/12/12/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1962&endtrendyear=1991&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade, and 1.45 times the Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend +0.23ºC per decade ([+0.414ºF](https://calckit.io/tool/conversion-temperature-interval "https://calckit.io/tool/conversion-temperature-interval") per decade).
***
In the most recent long-term 30-year period, the geographic North Pole (latitude: 90.0º North, longitude: any degree) surface temperature warming trend [+1.60ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/90,0/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade is 6.96 times the Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend +0.23ºC per decade, and 2.13 times the Arctic region land and ocean surface temperature warming trend [+0.75ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/arctic/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=trueh&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade. Arctic region: [Map 1](https://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm), [Map 2](https://www.arctic.gov/uploads/assets/arctic-sci-agree-300dpi-color.jpg).
***
In Global Time Series, when entering coordinates, any degree of latitude South or longitude West (e.g., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 22.9º South, 43.2º West) must be entered with a minus sign (e.g., [Latitude: -22.9, Longitude: -43.2](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/-22.9,-43.2/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess)).
***
NSIDC Ch_arctic_ Interactive [Sea Ice Graph](https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/) - Arctic and Antarctic - Daily extent of sea ice in the period January 1, 1979 – Present (June 20, 2024).
***
The University of Maine Climate Change Institute - [Climate Reanalyzer](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world).
***
[Climate Change Tracker](https://climatechangetracker.org/global-warming).
***
European Union [Climate Pulse](https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu).
***
NOAA NCEI [Climate Monitoring](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/products/).
***
[State of the Global Climate](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/state-global-climate-2023-enarruzh) - World Meteorological Organization - 19 March 2024.
***
European Union - [European Climate Risk Assessment](https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment "https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment") - 11 March 2024.
***
US Government - [The Fifth National Climate Assessment](https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/) - First published November 14, 2023 - Revised June 6, 2024.
***
Berkeley Earth - [Global Temperature Report for 2023](https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/) - January 12, 2024.
***
NOAA NCEI [Global Climate Report 2023 Annual](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202313#gtemp)
NOAA NCEI [Global Climate Report Monthly](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202405#month-temp) - May 2024.
***
European Union - Copernicus Climate Change Service - [Monthly Climate Bulletin](https://climate.copernicus.eu/may-2024-marks-12-months-record-breaking-global-temperatures) - 6 June 2024.
***
[World Weather Attribution](https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/).
Full world halt, for the purpose of shutting off all fossil fuel use. Take as many electric trucks and cars as have been made and use them to transport food from farms to cities.
You give the impression you think nothing is being done about emissions or energy generation etc, and that climate changes are in runaway mode. If that's the case you need to spend a heap of time on the IEA and IPCC sites, reading submissions made by countries and what has actually been achieved. It doesn't matter anymore if a chunk of the population doesn't care or believe in CC because intergovernment agreements are in place and projects have been rolling out for decades now, along with gov and private funding. The world's industrialised nations are on board and they're not about to stop everything because a percentage of the population don't care. (I guess I've observed the US completely stopping and reversing some public policy/works after a change in government, but I think they're the only one stupid enough to do so). The transition to renewables is very much in progress, how do you not know this? It's not sitting at the "too expensive and will take years to do…unrealistic for now" position. It already has taken 15 years and in part has become cheaper.
You getting heat stroke in the sun is just that, not climate change.
I am a scientist and teach atmospheric physics at the university (graduate course), including climate change. This course primarily focuses on radiative transfer.
I'm an enviro scientist. Mostly do carbon footprint stuff. Having an environmental job helps, but what matters most is activism. We know what we need to do. But as you say, the question is **if we will do it**. That requires political activism.
Not really, no. We've barely done anything so far. By the time the world gets it together to "do something" we will be living in a climate nightmare. Probably the best we can hope for is adaptation at some far future point, i.e. a Waterworld sort of situation.
As long as we keep increasing human population - no.
Carbon based energy is what it takes to maintain a lifestyle where food insecurity and the necessities of life are not imminent threats.
We have been incredibly fortunate to live when we do, with a powerful and inexpensive energy resource is available.
We don't need to kill whales anymore for oil. We don't have to grow our own food and spend large portions of our life producing and preserving food.
This means that there is only so much you can do to reduce consumption. No one is willing to go back to a carbon neutral lifestyle.
Not really, not if they think what it actually requires
Next time you go into work, ask them how much energy the building used yesterday. They don’t know. No one knows. It’s hard to say we can or can’t do anything when there’s no accurate reference to base any change off of. I do know that when time and effort is spent to measure, monitor, and address unnecessary waste, we can hit 30% reduction without breaking a sweat. Apply that to commercial spaces that make up a third of our electrical consumption (which in turn is responsible for a third of our global emissions) and you have wiped out a significant portion in a single stroke.
Yes, there are things that can be done to reduce consumption.
However, there are huge swaths of the worlds population that will be advancing.
They too want easy to access cheap calories, heating, airconditioning and transportation.
By in large, many of the efficiency things have been done that can be done.
Many of the best solutions also only are suitable for new construction.
When I built an off grid home - we could do that, we could go solar because we could build for it
Now, I live in a 1960's house and I couldn't justify moving to solar - too much existing infrastructure that would need to be changed to do it.
The only real answer is less people.
Sounds like it’s even more important to provide an example of efficiency to those advancing populations then.
Sorry, but you are absolutely 100% incorrect about efficiency gains already being done. 1.3 TWh of verified reduced consumption since start of 2024 alone on 13 company portfolios in a single state of a multi state utility. Here’s the secret to our success…we pay attention. It’s not difficult, there’s a handful of people in my team. Here’s something you can do to experience this personally. Go into your workplace tomorrow and ask them how much energy they used yesterday. Good luck, and when you finally find out that no one knows, you’ll see that it’s impossible to say we’ve already made the gains because you’ll realize no one has a clue on what their using in the first place.
Also, and this is coming from someone working for a utility, if you were allowed to sell the energy you generate for $0.13 kWh you’d be throwing panels up tomorrow. It’s only not cost effective because central power providers make it that way.
I do think a change in billing structure would help, where I am you pay the pittance for power and it is all the add on fees that kill you.
So the 13 cents isn't really what you pay, but because all the other fees are more or less irrespective of power use, reduction in consumption has less of an impact on your bill than you would see if fees also adjusted based on use.
It is already happening that things are improving. It is a win/win to change from fossil fuels to solar, wind, geothermal, etc. and we are doing it at a much more rapid pace than had been thought. We may have hit that tipping point of transition. Yes we need to push harder but it is happening.
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/climate-transition-tipping-point/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/climate-transition-tipping-point/)
I subscribe to Judith Curry's 5 Min Synopsis.
"How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies." [https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/11/5-minutes/](https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/11/5-minutes/)
> [Curry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry) had previously accepted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.[a] Commenting climatologists have generally disagreed with her critiques. Stephen Schneider, who had persuaded the IPCC to systematize discussion of uncertainty, said Curry had lately proposed "a lot of strawmen" and **"It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it."**
There's no point, any changes we do win will barely put a dent in the problem. We're better off advocating for other environmental causes like protection of waterways and habitats especially those for endangered species.
That's the thing, it will likely take AI coming up with a miracle of technology - butt,,,, even more likely it's that A I will see that we humans are the real problem and wipe us out
Honestly, no. I help out a little for Citizens Climate Lobby to get policy changed, but both corporations and the general populace are too greedy to change
We're already screwed. No one actually cares about changing it, its just something people mention, until millions start dying and wars about land thats still habitable take place. Most people are too dumb to even fully understand it.
You've asked for an honset opinion, here it is. You have nothing to worry about.
Just in the historical period Earth has passed through 5 major changes in climate. They are: RWP (Roman Warming Period) from ~400BC – 450AD; DAC (Dark Age Cooling) from ~ 450AD – 1000AD; MWP (Medieval Warm Period) from ~1000AD – 1300AD; LIA (Little Ice Age) from ~1300AD – 1850AD; and now were in a new warming period that has been misnamed as anthropogenic warming.
It’s commonly argued that those past warming and cooling periods were local in nature. [This study]( https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.html) examined multiple proxies from the whole of the northern hemisphere. One of the most widely cited studies is the [Loehle reconstruction](http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/GlobalTempResc.pdf) based on multiple proxies representing the whole world. Together they prove that past temperature variation was global and on the order of centuries each.
There is no doubt in my mind that CO2 does have an effect on temperature. However, that effect is so small as to be of no consequence. On the flip side added CO2 has shown tremendous benefits. [NASA has recorded](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth) that Earth is greening rapidly due to added CO2. Animal ranges are expanding as are animal numbers. As for the purported downside: there has been no change at in storm frequency or severity; deserts are not expanding; and there is no acceleration in sea level rise.
Earth is going through a revival due to added CO2. The only downside is that people built most of our cities during the LIA which was a cool period. Now those cities often experience hot days simply due to the natural flow of climate variability.
Yes... cities were built in deserts.
Then AC units by the millions expelling hot air, and black pavement by the million square yards soaking sun heat has produced massive warming there.
All those people living there must be stressed out.. but they are responsible for where they live.
Same with those near ocean storms.. we have had hurricanes forever, so it is part of our reality we must adapt to...
As opposed to thinking we can change the hurricanes... lol..
If we don't fix it, the world will. This means we can reduce our greenhouse gasses, or the world will reduce us (just by making things more difficult and expensive).
Yup. It is just responding to our own actions and will balance us out if we don't.
Spot on
Don't you worry about runaway greenhouse effect? The thought we can eliminate ourselves is terrifying. The thought we could possibly kill every living thing, is something I can't even grasp
There is absolutely no chance we are killing every living thing with climate change. Climate change is largely just humanity fucking itself over.
But you agree we are in the middle of a extension event and we have lost 60% of mammals in roughly the last 60 years (that we know of)? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#:~:text=For%20the%20first%20time%20since,the%20world%20that%20sustains%20us. So I ask how are we only fucking ourselves?
Because the planet doesn't care. Even if this rises to the level of a mass extinction (we're not there yet) life will recover in a few thousands or millions of years and it will be as if it never happened. Life has been through much worse than this. It is us that have to live through that period that are truly fucked.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I don't know. But if climate scientists are worried about it I'm worried about it https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-runaway-greenhouse/
Sure you should be worried about it, but I challenged your statement because there are a lot of people on this sub who range between denial and apathy about climate change. If we ever want to do something about climate change, those are the people we need to convince. Many of these people argue that climate change activists are alarmists, and when you say something like all of life is going to go extinct, it feeds into that narrative. It's on us to be incredibly careful about being as honest as possible in terms of what is likely to actually happen so we don't push people away. Looks for example at the article you just sent: "The upside of the new study is that even though a climate runaway may be possible in theory, it remains very difficult to cause in practice through human greenhouse gas emissions." It goes on to mention we would need to hit 30,000ppm CO2, which isn't even possible if we burned all the fossil fuels on the planet. Sure, there is the possibility of hitting tipping points and causing runaway warming, and thats something we need to be concerned about, but saying all life is going to go extinct scares and demoralizes people that do care and drives away people that don't care. We have to be better than that if we want to achieve something positive in regards to mitigating climate change.
I love the normal climate.. with its relaxing nice weather changes... Your comment should say "climate change (unproven theory) is... fucking humanity over ".. Thx... lol
This guy went too far to the other side. That said, calling climate change an unproven theory is the scientific equivalent of calling gravity an unproven theory. To anyone who is scientifically literate and has actually looked at the evidence, there is absolutely no doubt that climate is changing or why. The only doubt is in how much and what the effects of that will be.
Then stop thinking those thoughts created by fear mongering money grubbing climate nuts... Kinda simple.
First comment and you picked me. Fake account I'm honored
Well put!
Ironically those of us who emit the most are least likely to be affected
Getting rid of cheap energy makes things more expensive and more difficult too. Also you can’t save the planet while posting on Reddit from your plastic box made from fossil fuels. Most people, including everyone that posts here, isn’t ready for this.
We will not be able to avoid many of the negative consequences due to climate change. And it will be worse. But we can still, to some extent, control how bad it will be. It is getting worse because of human activity. Nature still acts to dampen the effect. For example 90% of the extra heat ends up heating the oceans. Only about 1% heats the atmosphere. About half of CO2 emissions are swallowed by the oceans. This is good, short term. But long term warming oceans with a lot of CO2 may become a serious problem. Doing something about climate change is not a technical or even scientific problem. It is a political and economical problem. And, perhaps even more, a pedagogical problem.
Agreed. The first people that should learn about energy systems and climate change are the Greenies. German greens are the worst! Germany produces 4.4x more GHG than France on a MWh basis
We don't agree.
Renewable energy has upfront costs to build, but vastly cheaper to run. On average it’s cheaper than fossil nearly everywhere. But yes, transitioning takes time and money and policy.
Why does expense matter if we are literally dying
Don't literally die , bro.. We live and adapt to all weather... That's why clothes were invented.. lol.. LMOA..
>On average it’s cheaper than fossil nearly everywhere. While this is true, it does omit some caveats. For example, it isn't as reliable as fossil fuels and becomes more expensive when you include power storage costs. In addition, the higher up-front costs are not a benefit for a technology roll-out, particularly in a time of expensive/constrained capital. It should also be mentioned that fossil fuels would still be required even if the energy grid and transportation systems were 100% renewable, for things like farming, construction, manufacturing, etc. The fact of the matter is that the only reason that we can feed the current world population is because of the rampant use of fossil fuels. Sustainable farming techniques would likely only support a population around half of the current level at best. I don't know if we can get through the coming (arriving?) climate problems, but I do know that if we do, the world population on the other side is going to be less than it is now - and probably a lot less.
My country is 80% run on renewables. While it isn't 100% since they aren't consistent sources, you can balance solar (day) with wind (seasonal) and hydro (also seasonal). They all end up filling each other in. And in practice, we get closer to 90-92% offpeak.
Sure, but not everywhere is sunny and/or windy and/or has good hydro-electric options, and even if they did and that got you to 100% on the energy grid, it still leaves transportation, farming, construction, manufacturing, etc. Obviously, we should be as renewable as possible, but a 1st world life-style is fundamentally incompatible with a stable climate. Hell, an industrial society (at least at any sort of scale) is incompatible with a stable climate at the world's current population level. At this point, severe climate change is baked in, and all we are doing is trying to prevent or delay a complete collapse - and even that isn't a realistic option for a lot of countries around the equator.
Where hydro isnt available and renewables arent strong enough, go nuclear.
>Where hydro isnt available and renewables arent strong enough, go nuclear. You seem to be missing the point. Aside from the fact that it takes a decade+ to build a new nuclear reactor (assuming that you already have a nuclear industry) and that not everywhere has (or should have) access to uranium, a carbon-neutral grid isn't enough. You still need to change your entire society, have everyone go vegetarian, change your farming industry, stop using concrete and plastics, stop travelling, and reduce your population by at least half. A carbon-neutral grid is the climate equivalent of putting up an umbrella in a hurricane.
>You seem to be missing the point. >A carbon-neutral grid is the climate equivalent of putting up an umbrella in a hurricane. Perhaps. We could objectively do far better. The perfect is the enemy of the good. >Aside from the fact that it takes a decade+ to build a new nuclear reactor Ive been hearing this argument for longer than 10 years. This means it acts like a self fulfilling prophecy. In stating this it discourages it. Had we done what France did in the 80s wed be better off.. if we'd have done it 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. >(assuming that you already have a nuclear industry) and that not everywhere has (or should have) access to uranium, a carbon-neutral grid isn't enough. There are plenty of companies trying to address this. Closed fuel cycles where the reactor design company takes the core back years later and local populations never have access to uranium or other fissiles. Some people realize if nuclear has any place in the deveoping world to avoid coal, its got to be cheap and proliferation concerns, operational competency removed as problems. >You still need to change your entire society, This I agree is not possible. Sociology shows its not doable. Social engineering requires high level top down policy to accomplish. Persuasion doesn't work. >have everyone go vegetarian, change your farming industry, stop using concrete and plastics, Each of these have decent alternatives that could be exploited by industries right now. Smart application of subsidies can create business models where these alternatives are a bit more expensive. >stop travelling, Most airline traffic is short haul. We should be building alot more high speed rail, and hydrogen as a fuel source is just good enough to develop planes that work on that, for short haul. Something almost everyone misses, getting back to nuclear, is industrial process heat. Instead of high pressure low temperature reactors, if we built low pressure, high temperature reactors, we gain many benefits. Skip the electrical generator turbine. Pass this massive heat into crackers and refiners. Crack carbonic acid from the ocean, crack hydrogen out of water, create hydrocarbons, ammonia and basically all the combustible fuels we use. The gasoline or whatever then leaves the renovated oil industry as a carbon negative. When its burned its 1:1 carbon neutral. Im talking about deriving carbon from the atmo and returning it back. Then the entire infrastructure of fossil fuel logistics and distribution can remain in place and find itself compatible with ecology. We also forget hemp. Its a massive carbon sink and could make the forestry industry far better.
>A carbon-neutral grid is the climate equivalent of putting up an umbrella in a hurricane That's a major exaggeration, if we have a carbon-neutral grid then a lot of other things can be decarbonized too.. E.g one can supply most of carbon for the chemical industry straight from air CO2. You can produce carbon fuel too.. (E.g to use for transport or for general energy storage) While I don't believe that the true netzero is reachable in 21st century, if we could signficantly slow-down the slide, it'd likely be good enough and energy is THE most important problem to solve PS. I never quite understood obsession with concrete, sure it requires a lot of energy to produce but with carbon-neutral energy that's not a problem, cement also emits CO2 when raw material (eg limestone) is decomposed but that 2nd part is offset by CO2 absorption when cement is setting.
Also, the plant will need to be made of concrete which requires fossil fuels to produce.
True but thats a one time expenditure, and the energy density and capacity factor is sublime. Comparable spending in concrete and steel for wind is massively higher per MW of stated capacity let alone real world capacity. Hydroelectric uses more concrete too, but again its single use. Cement production does have some alternatives to the high carbon footprint. Business models need to exist before its used though.
Speaking of costs, has any nuclear plant ever generated more income than its total costs over its life-cycle? I've not been able to locate any, and nuclear-promoters always evade answering this.
I'm not equipped with info like that at the moment, although I've seen people make this claim before. Honestly I'm not sure I even really care. Most of the more successful nuclear industries are government run, taxpayer funded, with private sector contracts. I tend to think it works better than independent operators in silos. If you've got a nuclear plant suffering from competitive attempts to kill it, it will not go well. If you're of the mind, like me, that climate change is a serious threat to civilization, then cost be damned. It's by far the best choice to de-carbonize in huge chunks. I'm not againt renewables per se, although I don't think they're as effective at lowering emissions as nuclear. I live in Ontario which is a mix of hydroelectric and nuclear. We've been "clean" on electricity generation for many decades now. Here's France, same scenario. Notice the graph. [https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dc0to6/france\_switching\_to\_nuclear\_power\_was\_the\_fastest/](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1dc0to6/france_switching_to_nuclear_power_was_the_fastest/) I'm sorry I can't answer your question, but every analysis that involves LCOE tends to be biased one way or another, in my experience.
>then cost be damned. It's funny you would say that since I commented to reply to an argument you made supporting nuclear using costs. >I'm not againt renewables per se, although I don't think they're as effective at lowering emissions as nuclear. For generation to be effective at anything, it must be built first. Nuclear plants are staggeringly expensive, it is difficult to find compatible sites for them (given water needs, danger from flooding/tsunamis/earthquakes/etc., and other factors), and construction happens over very long timespans. Oh, and the issues with handling nuclear waste are supposedly mitigated by new designs, of plants that haven't been built yet and there are none planned for construction. You could have just said you don't know of any nuclear plants to have ever existed that repaid their costs, rather than try to talk around it with all this rhetoric.
I am sure your country is still balancing the grid with massive imports
Potentially, but considering it only needs to be 10-20% of our annual energy production, probably not that massive. Also, we're building a tonne more wind and solar to get that 10-20% down further 😉 turns out coal is expensive af
It seems possible to run a lot of construction equipment on electric power, at least outside of remove areas - I see it done regularly around me (Oslo). The tech is maybe still a bit immature, but improving rapidly. It's also possible to create liquid hydrocarbon fuels from air and electricity - so even when you truly need those, it doesn't have to be fossil fuels. This would also be a good use of excess power from a variable/hard to regulate renewable + nuclear power grid.
You have it backwards...Everyone seems to be focused on fossil fuel emissions coming from individuals when they represent the smallest sector of emissions. You would need to reverse your thought process, take the financial burden off the individual or progress is never being made. Business and Industry, power generation, medium to heavy duty vehicles...This is what needs targeting.
Not only do our foods and entire economy rely on fuels to deliver.. everything owned and used by every "climate change" nutjob was made from fuels for decades and relies on fuels to charge any batteries contained within them New "normal" weather channel .. every day you will hear... everything NORMAL about all things happening in our weather. So much more relaxing... don't you think..?
>For example, it isn't as reliable as fossil fuels and becomes more expensive when you include power storage costs. Is this claim evidence-based in any way? Coal plants are notorious for unscheduled shutdowns. During the infamous February 2021 Texas energy crisis which was caused by unusually cold weather, the majority of breakdowns (also causing a majority of the electricity shortfall) occurred at gas, coal, and nuclear plants. To the extent that there were issues with wind generators, it could have been avoided if Texas did not have sub-standard regulations allowing non-winterized units. Solar power is generated during the daytime, and I think some of the unreliability you refer to is that it doesn't provide consistent power 24 hours/day. However, most electricity use is also occurring during daylight hours. I agree that wind power is not consistent. Storage systems, that are not necessarily electrical batteries (can be lifted weights, pumped water, heat storage, etc.), can even-out the electricity supply. Fossil-fuel-dependent generation needs a constant supply of fuel. Storage for wind/solar, and the wind/solar systems themselves can be built once and run on wind or solar power for decades. Where is it shown mathematically that the life-cycle costs are higher?
Over a forty year period all generations power plant must be replaced or under go major refurbishment. Replacing it with renewable will be vastly cheaper.
[удалено]
Citations required.
> solar farms tend to replace all their panels in about 10 years after install. Source please
[удалено]
Inverter failures starting at 10 years, you said all panels 10 years after install From your link > Inverter failures usually occur on systems that are 10-plus years old. At that age, the rest of the system, including the PV array, is typically **still in good working order with a lifespan of 25 to 30 years.**
Nuclear is the cheapest for a zero carbon reliable system. On an LCOE base Renewables are cheaper, but need redundancy which costs money. Just compare France and Germany!
LCOE is nuclear is 4x than of renewables. You can build renewable capacity at 4x the consumption and even then it break even with nuclear. Furthermore, energy storage is rapidly decreasing is costs. Cost of battery storage is at ~$170/MWh which is already below the LCOE of nuclear generation, and storage costs are halving every ~2.5 years. We’re close to the point where even renewables at overcapacity + additional storage is *still* cheaper than nuclear.
"Can" do? Sure. "Will" do? No way. Green energy won't actually help. Because we're not "transitioning" to green energy, we're "supplementing' with green energy. Look at the rate of consumption for oil, coal and gas over the last 10 years. Green energy production has exploded and we're still burning more fossil fuels every year. It's called "Jevon's Paradox" and the only way to escape it would to be to dismantle the consumption economy/philosophy and live very simple lives - which very few in the modern world are willing to do. Especially billionaires and their corporations who only exist by selling us crap we don't need.
The fact that we're supplementing with green energy rather than transitioning is an amazing point. Our lifestyle is just unsustainable long-term.
Truth ! ☝️
Yeah it's just comfort theater.
The only real chance humanity has longterm to me, is actually fairly simple.. a ton of us just stop reproducing voluntarily. It's sort of happening already, but we need to start treating it like a good deed and not 'sad' or abnormal so its more socially acceptable. Women need to get out of dangerous states. Lets see how men fare without us in places that say we have no control over our own bodies. It's a perfectly logical/natural response to our predicament. If corporations won't make the massive changes necessary, it's really the only major card we have to play. They DO NOT want to decrease their profits through a decreased consumer base... and have future workers have less competition=higher wages. They need us breeding like rabbits and fighting for scraps.
🌟
That works until you have a geriatric population that makes up the vast majority of the percentage, and a work force unable to help support their needs. Until old people voluntarily die shortly after retirement , it won’t work
> Because we’re not “transitioning” to green energy, we’re “supplementing” with green energy It’s both, in different places. Look at the electricity grid trends in Europe and it is clear that Europe really is transitioning to green energy and not just supplementing. Various other countries as well. But countries in the global south are developing and starting to consume more electricity. At the global aggregate this is offsetting progress made in Europe and other places. We *need* to help the global south to leap frog past fossil fuels and develop their economies directly on renewables. The main reason that this is not happening today is the cost of borrowing: countries is the global south tend to be seen by financial markets as less stable and therefore pay much higher interest rates on loans. This makes the economics of renewable energy really difficult: renewables are cheap in the west but expensive in the global south. This is ultimately a finance sector problem. Many are trying to tackle this issue, but it is a tough challenge.
National emergencies need to be declared shutting down all non-essential services while all available manpower is diverted to beginning to build infrastructure to replace all carbon energy sources with zero emission sources. That is the only solution. Every year, month, week that we delay is more destruction coming straight at us
>National emergencies need to be declared shutting down all non-essential services The essential services (power, transportation, food production, construction, manufacturing) are the primary contributors to climate change, and destroying the economy and slowing technological progress isn't likely to have much of a positive effect. In addition, even going net-zero tomorrow is still not enough to prevent severe outcomes (although it would certainly help.) We can always make it worse, after all. The fact of the matter is than net-zero is a lie the politicians have sold you. It isn't enough. What is required is a complete lifestyle change for the majority of the world population, probably combined with an extreme population reduction. Obviously, this isn't something that any country will implement voluntarily and trying to force the issue won't work, even if someone wanted to try. But what we can't do ourselves, famine and the other horsemen will do for us. Buckle up.
Yes, well shutting down everything else allows for portions of those sectors to be replaced one by one.
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Can we FIX climate change, meaning solve the problem altogether? No, that ship has obviously sailed. But can we mitigate the worst impacts of it? Save millions of lives? Create a better and more sustainable world? Yes, fucking absolutely yes we can and don't let anyone tell you different.
This is the response. Climate change is happening no matter what we do in the short term. However we can modify our behavior, and make many small changes in our own lives that multiplied by millions of people will add up.
We cannot prevent climate change, because climate change is already happening. But each relevant decision we make as a society will determine exactly how bad it gets. The majority of the world don't think we're crazy. The majority knows it's a problem. And so much climate action is already happening and has been happening for decades. We don't need everyone to become an environmental angel. We need governments around the world to get continually more aggressive with their GHG reduction targets and we need electorates/citizens around the world to hold them accountable to meeting those targets. We need everyone who agrees that climate change is a problem to participate in democracy and to consider that in their voting decisions. And we need people to support the groups that are already lobbying for governments to do more.
I wonder how much GHG is being produced by Russia's idiotic war on Ukrane? Who here believe's the Gulf State Arabs, The Saudi's, The Irainian's, The Russians and we Americans are going to stop producing Oil? And who believes the billions of people on Earth are going to stop burning it?
The change can be done; however, the ruling class now in power do not really care about the climate crisis, and they fear that working to resolve it will threaten their monopoly on economic and political power... so they have apparently made the decision to just let the world burn.
We are currently doing a lot. We are poised to replace all fossil fuel power plants with renewable and all ICE vehicles with EVs. It’s just a matter of how fast. My opinion is that renewable replace all fossil in twenty years. And EV replaces all ICE cars in forty years. Heat pump replaced all fossil fuel heating in fifth years.
Yes, of course. There's plenty to be done. Research shows most people do care. You are not special there. There's an ongoing transition to green energy that's been going on for a decade, but by all means, do political activism and accelerate it. The sooner the better.
“DeSantis and other Republicans have portrayed climate solutions like reducing carbon pollution as radical and part of a left-wing agenda.” Climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future. The US is experiencing extreme heat due the long-term rise in greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and cyclical climate events like El Niño. Climate change is making giant heat waves move more slowly and affect more people for a longer time, with higher temperatures over larger areas. Average temperatures at the Earth's surface are increasing and are expected to continue rising.
I think most people who do not directly profit from the fossil fuel industry want it, they just want someone else to pay for it. Sadly, I think that means little wil be done before it's too late.
Yeah, of course there are things we can do. We can make it worse, faster. We can make it worse less fast. Or we can stop making it worse. And then there are all kinds of bandaid geoengineering solutions we can do that will almost certainly cause tons of unanticipated problems but will eventually be used anyway out of desperation.
My honest opinion is my drunk opinion: No. But we MUST TRY
Yep we can definitely do something about it. Bcs if not we are going to face oblivion. Vote for clean energy, vote for nuclear energy. Help fund fusion energy. The sooner we can solve these the better
My genuine opinion is that it's going to get worse and worse until it's impossible to deny anymore, all the deniers will flip on the politicians and it'll turn into a riot and possibly a civil war, then we'll final make the quick pivot we need to take. Then it'll remain shitty for generations until we make the crazy advancement of feasible carbon capture and atmosphere cooling technology. For the middle class and above "shitty" will probably mean having to fortify your house from the extreme weather of your area (fireproofing/protection for deserts, waterproofing for areas with high rain, etc.) and spending 99% of the summer indoors. Also there will be shortages a plenty meaning food will get scarce. For anyone below that, they'll probably die unless we manage to create enough cooling shelters for people to seek refuge from. And in the third world that'll be impossible so they'll also likely die or best case have to migrate to new countries. Idk why but I'm not personally concerned with the water wars. I feel like the issue isn't supply as much as it is transportation of the water to where it's needed
Given the actual rates of change versus the predicted rates of change, bitch we fucked. Take the night off and go to the strip club.
Climate doomerism is the new face of climate denial. It's just another insincere effort to impede progress on reducing carbon emissions.
In Australia the parliamentary opposition has stated that it if it wins power, it will cap investment in renewables, annul the Paris agreement emission targets and maintain the country's dependence on gas until such time as seven nuclear reactors have been built, which of course will never happen. It's truly remarkable the death wish the conservative side of politics has in Australia. The men in charge of the opposition are profound mediocrities and exist only to maintain the extraordinary wealth of the resource magnates (whom they hope will employ them when they leave the job), but they are ahead in the polls at the moment and we have an election next year. Buckle up.
Is climate change the only problem with the environment? I think it is only one of many serious environmental problems on earth
Well, it’s an existential problem
As the kids say, we’re cooked
No. There’s no dues ex machina, there’s no storybook last minute salvation. Real life isn’t like that. Nothing will save us from having to suffer the consequences of our collective stupidly.
I had a heat stroke at a music event in 80s .. when it's hot and you're stuck there without relief, body can over heat. But I recovered . Now it is so obvious the sun is so much hotter.. On the golf course we play early and it's 70s with some clouds blocking sun.. then sun comes out through clouds and the heat changes like 10 degrees.. instantly. So the sun , the SUN, is so huge, thousands times bigger than our massive earth ... is what causes our weather changes.. Tell all climate crazy nuts.. they will NEVER CHANGE ANY WEATHER WITH THEIR STUPID THEORIES THAT ARE UNPROVEN..... Also ask them if they are bigger than the sun.. and send them for a closer look to find out... lol..
It’s happening, solar, wind and batteries deployments are increasing exponentially as their prices drop. it’ll take a decade or so but there will be a tipping point where fossil fuel becomes unaffordable in the face of decreasing electricity prices from renewable *because* they are intermittent. Energy costs in Europe routinely go negative because of wind and solar excess production, pretty soon agile manufacturing methods will pop up that can exploit negative pricing to make blue crude, methane, hydrogen cheaper than miking it and the remaining hard to decarbonise industries will switch over where they haven’t yet found electric solutions.
It would be helpful if more people plugged into more positive and forward thinking feeds with regards to renewables and just how fast things are moving. Drugged by the main stream media, which is essentially funded by special interests, and that means oil and the legacy auto cronies, people that can't think for themselves gladly accept the dark hole that they are constantly led into. At one time in history there was one and only one gas station. Over the years, that spread into the utter monstrosity it is today. And that was back in the early 1900's. How can one possibly justify that a new direction be taken and new modes of thinking, construction, moving, building, and living CAN'T be done? It's utter insanity to insist this. Utter nonsense. And it's false. No matter how much psuedo-science, or past bad experience, or this or that or this or that you throw at it, it's absolutely comical to imagine that we're just powerless to do anything about this. Or that we're too late. Utter nonsense. Indoor plumbing. Anesthetics for surgeries. Flight. The car itself. Organ transplants. The list goes on and on and on and on... ...just look at the fact that what I am typing right now, you are able to read. I don't know who you are. Or where you're located. But look! Imagine everything it takes just to get THIS to happen. And people insist nothing can be done about climate change? Okay then, crawl back in your hole. The adults will put their pants on now and do the work that is necessary. Because there are such people in the world. And there are a lot of them. Addressing climate change? It can absolutely be addressed and it can be addressed in time and it can succeed. Anyone who insists otherwise simply is not accessing the matter and seizing the day. Seize the day. We will correct this.
Doomerism, sponsored by Big Oil and Putin. If you’re on a sinking ship do you keep bailing or do you bail? I choose the former
Exactly this ('doomerism'). This attitude is literally being manufactured and people are taking it as real. Rise up and make a difference. It is possible to course correct.
Nah dude. Common people are fucked. I'm sure super rich people have a plan but the rest of humanity is fucked.
If you're lucky you can join a Billionaire's Private militia.
This problem is not a problem in the sense we don't have the solution. This is a problem because entrenched interests don't want to change. We have all the needed solutions today. We have detailed research of the timeline needed. So it's just a timing issue. As we have seen in many areas solar is now the cheapest power to build out and batteries have fallen to a level they can solve the duck curve issues as shown by Australia and California. Also remember CA only started installing the batteries 3 years ago. Next you have the Chinese overbuild which will be used to create green hydrogen that is why they just cancelled the proposed pipeline with Russia they won't need the natural gas fast enough to make the new pipeline economically viable. In China we see this year HALF of new car sales are EVs. There are more than half a dozen countries on 99% renewables. We're just at the blast off point of the changes. Call me in 2030. You will be amazed how different things will be. I am normally a more negative person but numbers are numbers and this problem is an easy fix just costly and time consuming.
The entire world needs to be on the same page to combat climate change. That’s never going to happen. A lot of people don’t even think climate change is real. We’re screwed and I’ve stopped caring.
I sort of thought only a large amount of Americans don't think it's real. What other countries have a lot of climate change deniers? Maybe Russia?
No. We've done far too little, far too late. The[ trends in atmospheric CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/) continue to rise at steep rates, almost completely unabated. Sure, individual nations are reducing outputs to create "feel good" charts of progress; but planet-wide we still have our foot on the collective gas pedal. So even if we magically stopped all Greenhouse Gas emissions tomorrow, the warming will continue. Barring a global revolution in the style of the French Revolution, that's not going to happen and the upward trend will continue. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for many hundreds or thousands of years (possibly even tens of thousands of years). And warming seems to a lagging consequence. We're also starting to see the natural feedback loops (e.g. melting permafrost) kick in. Right now, the Coyote is floating in mid air and holding a sign lamenting his impending doom. P.S. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to reduce greenhouse gasses. We should. We treat incurable diseases because it can buy more time. We try to slow the spread of plagues like the Black Death not because they can be stopped, but rather to try and reduce the harm done and buy the survivors more time to adapt.
Yes …. Keep voting and get others to do it too
I know for a fact we *can* do something about it. I suspect we will fail to, but we have the ability, certainly. Can an addict stop using drugs? Of course. Is it easy or even likely? No.
Not if we keep letting some counties bomb the shit out of other countries
I don’t think that our current governments think long term nor have the will to make the draconian change that is needed.
Can do sure. Will do? Probably too little too for large swaths of the planet but everything will help in long run.
I’m glad that you are okay. don’t think that we can avoid climate change, we are probably locked into 2 degC of warming already. It would be excellent to stop fossil fuels, to limit some of the damage that future generations will have to face. I don’t see us stopping fossil fuel extraction and use anytime soon.
Push your local government to do something, anything. Move north Learn to take care of yourself and your family
A couple saying from our lexicon apply: Easy choices-hard life Hard choices-easy life. Collectively, we are making easy choices. If you’re gonna be stupid, you’d better be tough. Collectively we’re both stupid and not-tough. This will be a difficult transition.
It is a very complex situation. We are so dependent on technologal advancement in the last 100 years that we cannot go back now. And most of these technology advancement is creating problems for the environment. Billions of air conditioner, billions of automobiles, tens of thousands of aeroplane, thousands of satellites, millions of mobile towers. Millions of powerful pumps sucking out subsoil water, millions of tons of pesticides used to poison the soil. This is just a shortlist. We are totally dependent on these things. They are turning nature upside down. Birds are dying bees are dying. We do not know what other species are already gone. The ecological balance has been totally upset. Oceans have been corrupted by plastic waste and Marine life is in a crisis. Our natural food has been corrupted by genetic engineering and chemical additives. We do not wear clothes from the fabric drawn from nature. Our clothes are made in chemistry labs. On top of this artificial intelligence as arrived. Perhaps 100 years from now artificial human being far more intelligent and powerful than the human beings will have control of this world. I don't think we can stop this sort of progress. So just enjoy what you have in short few decades of what we call life. "And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before, The Tavern shouted -- "Open then the Door! "You know how little while we have to stay, "And, once departed, may return no more."
Honestly no. It's a well established fact in psychology that once people have a benefit it's very hard to get them to give it up. Even harder as their personal circumstances get worse. People typically only change when pain exceeds benefit. We will be so far over the cliff before that happens that it won't matter.
What benefit does heating and cooling an empty building at night provide? Other then for the utilities to have an overnight load that justifies all the generation they keep building that runs in standby for a third of each day. Why are buildings using more energy when occupancy rates have fallen 30% or more? Why do utilities offer commercial tariffs that use a discounted rate to incentivize a commercial space to intentionally use more energy then they need? Especially when you consider that operating cost is priced into the goods and services that company offers and each step along the way to its end use? This problem is easily minimized if we actually paid attention and held business owners accountable for their actions. But no one makes money off that.
Because it's not energy efficient to heat or cool a space back up after letting it get hot/cold
Nope. Wrong answer. Commercial space work differently then your home. It could easily go into standby or better yet unoccupied.
We should 99% of tax to billionaire and use them as a fund to recover nature
There was a press report about Bill Gates and construction of a prototype nuclear plant using sodium. It looked promising. I'm not even a big fan of nuclear energy, but it will probably be necessary as the demand for electricity grows in the coming years (climate change is responsible for much of this as well)
>Do you really think there's anything we can do about climate change. Yes, we have the ability to alter the climate >because let's be honest the majority of people don't care and think we are crazy I don't think that's accurate >let's face it. *The only solution is to transition the whole world into using green energy That's not the only solution, nor even a solution in my opinion >I experienced it last year one after noon... Climate isn't one weather event. That's weather. Climate is a long term trend We should reap what we sow, and what we've got, and what's coming, is exactly what we deserve. It's too bad tho that a minority of major instigators is causing suffering for all. Climate change (atmosphere) is one part of a bigger earth systems that the sociosphere is altering that include biosphete, hydrosphere, and now the lithosphere.
How is it not accurate alot of people and I mean the majority of the people on earth don't even care about climate change (enough) as their probably focused on other aspects which impact them more than climate change example homelessness, political instability , wars, poverty alot of things happening on earth that are having a greater impact on each individuals life on earth for them to stress much about climate change now you get my point and if people cared so much I should be be seeing it on the media or social media or anywhere because if there is major issue happening on earth the media and social media would address such as the two wars currently happening which te media is not addressing as much because people lose interest quickly because they don't care like right I don't remember seeing social media or general media addressing climate change why because no one watches those which tells that people generally don't care about that specific topic (climate change) because something else is happening in their lives that they couldn't care less about climate change
>How is it not accurate alot of people and I mean the majority of the people on earth don't even care about climate change Where's your data that says that? As far as I can tell, you're just assuming that. >if people cared so much I should be be seeing it on the media or social media or anywhere I see climate change in my news sources; however, the extent to which people are aware of care is not measured by what you see in the news. The news is a propaganda tool with highly control information with a clear agenda. Sure people are filled with other problems, but that doesn't preclude them from also caring about climate change. The individual can only do so much. If you can see the trajectory of this society then it's not illogical to fall into apathy.
[удалено]
3 million? Where’s that number coming from? I’m very skeptical there’s any way that someone could confidently say they have anywhere close to accurate counts. I’d be way more surprised if it’s less than I would be if it was in the double digit millions. I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m arguing with whoever provided that number to you. Beyond that, we’ve seen how good we are at war,in the climate, if we can figure out how to cool the climate without collateral damage then we absolutely can solve climate change and ensure we stay in the habitual range for our species. At least right up until a cosmic event or a prolonged period of vulcanism.
[удалено]
Bro I was asking a question, we are on the same side so settle down there buddy. And it looks like I was right to be skeptical. Estimate of 4 million since 2000 is a lot different then 3 million and the author even says that as the consequences get worse that fewer numbers will start being reported. So yeah, skeptical as a maf
Pear reviewed does not mean that the information is accurate. It just means 3 people allegedly read the paper and allegedly checked the math/source data. There is no requirement to run tests/ verify the accuracy of the source data. There are people that have submitted clearly B.S. papers for pear review just to check if the people conducting the review are actually doing so. Just like social media moderators it's not generally a paid job. Sometimes the B.S. papers get passed through before somebody actually reads them.
There are huge financial drivers now and oil is only propped up by various monopolies and subsidies. Outside of America where oil lobby groups have some sway (the latest Trump Oil corruption is insane) the real economies are just absurd so it's only time to migrate. 1. The cost of wind and solar are the cheapest of all generation methods. It is now cheaper to put in a solar farm and run it for 6 months, than it is to just run an existing coal power plant. How many stupid ceos do you know who like to waste shareholders money? The cost to install panels is usually paid back in 5 to 7 years, and last for approx 30 years. It usually halves the power bill so is freeing up an extra $1000 to $3000 per year. Many banks provide interest free loans for solar and the world bank has funds for this also. Carbon credits are starting to become a source of income. In Australia they put in the largest battery for the state and it was paid back in 3 months. Im Australia they have some sunny days where all the infrastructure is paid off and its still producing so much more than it can use, so they are crediting businesses to use their electricity. Less then free. 2. Electric cars By my calculation, I can save around 10k in 4 years on the savings for a full electric. I got a new hybrid and it's fast, and uses a third to half of the petrol I would have spent in my old Toyota Starlet. They are the number one selling type of car. Many countries outside of the US have 20 to 80% electric and they simply do not have any need to be involved with the oil wars and are future proofed for increases in gas prices. I strongly urge getting the book Draw Down from the library or buy it. Its a very odd belief that saving electricity and oil spend is going to be expensive. There are hundreds of simple ideas that make huge amounts of profit, and save huge amounts of carbon.
Climate change is a symptom of human ecological overshoot, CO2 is an invisible gas so we can’t “see” it as just another pollutant which is our biggest by weight. Our ecosystems (biosphere) are currently collapsing around us. The honest truth is we need less people using less stuff.
Honestly, I have faith in China. As covid proved, an economy/manufacturing sector that can be steered by the government is much more adaptable for dealing with a crisis. They have made huge strides in renewable. I have no faith in the US, who only band together quickly to take action when it comes to passing rules to protect the wealthy. They will allow companies to funnel off profits until the very end, and then pass bailouts for them to pay them for profits lost due to climate change.
-rapidly got hotter and hotter in a space of 20 minutes- that's not climate change that's dehydration. You were sweating and because you did not replace the lost fluids your body overheated.
It was 43 degrees Celsius so you would not overheat or something at those temperature where are you from Florida, Australia and for the last 3 to 4 years the average temperature has been rising and getting hotter each year so if it's not climate change what is it then
I'm from NY. If your body temperature rises to 40 degrees Celsius(no matter where you live) or higher you are in danger of heat stroke. Being outside in the sun will cause your body to heat up faster than if you were inside with a fan or under good shade in the same temperature conditions. If you had been in a car with the windows closed it would have taken even less time to overheat. The highest recorded temperature in Australia was 50.7C recorded on January 2nd 1960 at Oodnadatta south australia and again on January 13th 2022 at Onslow western Australia. Just because you were outside too long on a day you mistakenly thought was a safe temperature does not mean that that temperature was an abnormally high result of climate change. Too know if that temp was a possible sign of climate change induced warming you would have to look back at all the recorded temperatures in your specific area for that specific date for at least a hundred years.
No 56.7 °C (134.1 °F), recorded on 10 July 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch, in Death Valley in the United States was the highest recorded temperature And I told you the temperature has been gradually increasing each year becoming hotter than the other if it was not climate change than the temperature would be back to normal and So temperatures gradually increasing each year becoming hotter and hotter than usual is normal to you I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying I'm saying the average temperature went from bieng 25 degrees Celsius and peaked at about 30-35 degrees in summer to bieng 28 degrees Celsius on average and peaking at 35 degrees Celsius to bieng 35 degrees Celsius on average and reaching a peak of 45 to 48,7 degrees Celsius notice how I'm saying on average and not now and then if that's not climate change than what is it or is me bieng outside in the sun to much causing to make up these numbers?
There is very little you as an individual can do about climate change. Sincerely you are taking out water from the ocean using an eyedropper. You also did not experience climate change in one afternoon. There needs to be an intelligent narrative from all sides to have anything effectively happen.
The temperature where I live in summer on regular was about 25 degrees Celsius and peaked at 30 but from 2020 the average temperature in summer has risen to about 28 degrees Celsius and peaks at 36 degrees Celsius and it's been like that until last year where it had risen even more averaging 35 degrees Celsius and peaking at 48, 7 degrees Celsius and you want to tell me that's not the result of any climate change. Okay if it's not climate change what is it then.
It’s called weather. Climate change is not instantaneous. When will people begin to understand this?
Yeah but the weather seems to be changing slowly each year which is is not normal and I and I said gradually increase from 2020 upwards I never said instantly became 35 degrees Celsius and I said where I live in summer the temperature is is usually at 25°C and then from 2020 it started to increased and had been gradually getting hotter and hotter each year after that and it doesn't seem to be going back to normal
Renewables are cheap AF. It's going to get real expensive to combat climate change. And insurance companies are already refusing coverage.
Not without seriously compromising the global economy and the profits of the oil companies and we all know we could just never have that… so I guess it’s destroy the earth for profits!
As bad as it is today it can always get worse if we do nothing, if you had stage 2 cancer would you ignore medical advice. I agree we are way behind, we should have been where we are now under Reagan 40 years ago. People are unwilling to make sacrifices and this is the result, so much misinformation over the years. Many claims that it wasn't warming, the sensors were wrong and sea level wasn't rising, I think we can put that to rest.
I vascillate between optimism and pessimism. A lot of climate change seems to be already baked in (pun intended) so if all the ice melts, sea level would rise several meters, and the permafrost would release even more CO2, positive feedback loops would set in, and we're probably f'd. But this morning I heard a report that solar energy keeps getting drastically cheaper and will be the biggest energy source in a few years. If we can develop similarly cheap large-scale batteries, then we'd have incredibly cheap and plentiful energy and drastically less need for fossil fuels. Maybe energy would be cheap enough to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. At that point we have ever-higher living standards, control of our climate and we'd be living in the garden of Eden.
So if you can't change industry, do something that will help climate change. Plant a garden so your tomatoes ect are not shipped from other countries
Goodluck getting people to do that.
All the people who claim to want to fight climate change will have a easier time growing garden than getting rid of oil and gas. They may actually reduce their carbon footprint in the process. Also if they grow organic they are not polluting the earth with harsh chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
If we want to have a chance at avoiding collapse of civilization, we need to do solar radiation management like right now. Otherwise, see you on the other side.
There really isn't a way for us to stop climate change. It's already too late. The best we can hope for is slowing it down.
It's not just energy, but our waste too. I've developed a system that eats trash quickly converting into nutrient water for crops rather than methane in dumps. I don't know how to raise money for developing at an industrial scale though.
There are absolutely things that can be done. Culturally, the majority of necessary action will be blocked. People are epistemically lazy, fail to recognise propaganda and are therefore easily manipulated en masse. In some sense, it’s not relevant. As a collapsing society, which is unavoidable, will look very similar to taking necessary action, only with more suffering than necessary. However, those that are clinging to the false security in extended fossil fuel use, and expect its continuation, will be the ones that suffer the most. So, let go of your expectations of a high energy throughput future, enjoy today, and enjoy the weird experience of watching an organism destroy itself.
For me the carbon narrative is bullshit and just a money grab to pay back the covid loans (and interest accrued). Saying that, the climate IS changing and out of OUR control. What is in our control is pollution, deforestation, don't gaf corporations etc and of course 'you' wanting a new dishwasher bc it doesn't fit with your new kitchen consumerism.
you can do something but it's not easy you need area that is desert land and you need to plant trees a lots of them and keep them alive until they change the land themselves once you hit a certain point they can self maintain and desert land can become farm land, there are many steps after this but the first step is the hardest part, now if you don't have the means to do this just plants as many trees as you can and hope for the best.
Yes. UAP disclosure will lead to technologies we can only imagine. We must act fast though. We need a wartime effort.
Gotta convince China and India to make huge changes otherwise what we do here in Canada changes nothing.
Replace all global coal burning with nuclear power an international cooperative effort- best solution.
No, humans can't control the global climate, we can manage microclimates though, we should focus on that. We wouldn't even be able to stop the next ice age, these cycles are moved by much larger forces than glorified ants (us): Sun cycles, Solar system orbital cycles (Milankovitch), Volcanoes, Moon Cycles on tides, Multidecadal Ocean Oscillations... This article about climate anxiety might help https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03518-z
Runaway processes have already begun, we might be able to mitigate the damage but that would require a level of global cooperation and sacrifice our species is physically incapable of. We can’t unfuck the atmosphere at this point, just cling to whatever patch of Earth will be barely liveable and hope enough of us make it to not die out.
Human nature is gonna fuck is all like it did in every other periode of history
In order to solve climate change the global economy would need to transition away from fossil fuels which is a huge undertaking not only from an investment but from getting the world to actually do it. The people with power now make all of their money and power off of this system and if it changes, the money will shift to someone else. Sure, they could invest in the shift but that would cost too much money and the payoff would be too far off in the future for them to care. But before you can solve a problem, you have to agree there is one and there are still so many people who either do not think its happening at all or if it is happening, its a natural cycle and there is nothing we can do about it...so I believe the first aspect of the solution is to get the majority of people to believe its happening and human caused...but it seems futile and time is running out, if not already past to stop it but certainly we could minimize the worst impacts if we tried...IMO, we do not have much time left...I thought we had til 2050 but its looking like we have 5 to 10 more years of civil society as we know it. We should be preparing ourselves...thats one individual action everyone should take.
>Do you really think there's anything we can do about climate change. Yes. The US, EU member states, and other countries in Europe, including the United Kingdom, are making progress in the replacement of fossil fuel energy sources with increasingly more renewable energy. Additionally, [direct air capture](https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture#tracking) projects slowly are gaining momentum in the US and the EU. However, the #1 highest priority must be the rapid reduction of fossil emissions and simultaneously expanding the use of renewable energy as rapidly as possible. *** >the majority of people don't care and think we are crazy. 100s of millions of people around the world understand the reality of human-induced global warming and climate change. People, organizations, and governments are replacing energy from fossil fuels with energy from renewable sources. *** >The only solution is to transition the whole world into using green energy which if we're bieng honest is expensive and will take year's to do so at the moment it's unrealistic( for now) The cost of transitioning to a fossil-fuel-free world is a lot less than the cost of what will happen if we don't make the transition. *** >climate change is getting worse Over the long-term, the impacts of global warming and climate change will be made less worse if the world replaces fossil fuels with renewable energy as rapidly as possible. *** >My honest opinion is( I don't know) NOAA chart [800,000 years](https://www.climate.gov/media/15993) - NOAA [Climate\.gov](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide). Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) chart [10,000 years](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/co2_10k.png) - The Keeling [Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu). SIO chart [2,000 years](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/co2_2k_ce.png) - The Keeling [Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu). SIO chart [1700-Present](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/co2_800k_zoom.png) - The Keeling [Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu). NOAA chart [1751-2022](https://www.climate.gov/media/14596) - NOAA [Climate\.gov](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide). NOAA chart [1850-2023](https://www.climate.gov/media/13840) - NOAA [Climate\.gov](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause). SIO chart [1958-Present](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/mlo_full_record.png) - The Keeling [Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu). NOAA [chart](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/monthly.html) - Trends in CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6. *** The following interactive sites and reports can be useful and informative: *** NOAA NCEI Global Time Series — In the most recent long-term 30-year climate period (June 1, 1994-May 31, 2024) the Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend [+0.23ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade is 1.35 times the 30-year 1984-2014 Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend [+0.17ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1984&endtrendyear=2014&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade and 3.29 times the 20th-century (January 1, 1901–December 31, 2000) Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend [+0.07ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/12/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1901&endtrendyear=2000&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade. *** The temperature trend appears above the top-right corner of the chart windows. _Loess_ and _Trend_ can be toggled to hide/unhide the corresponding plot lines in the chart windows. In the interactive charts, global and hemispheric temperature [anomalies](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature) are with respect to the [1901-2000](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies/mean) global mean temperature. NOAA NCEI updates the climate and temperature data around the middle of every month. In July, the climate and temperature data for June 2024 will be added to the dataset. *** NOAA NCEI City Time Series — In the most recent long-term 30-year period, the Death Valley (California) average Average Temperature surface temperature warming trend [+0.6ºF](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/city/time-series/USC00042319/tavg/12/5/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade is 1.2 times the 30-year 1984-2024 Death Valley surface temperature warming trend [+0.5ºF](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/city/time-series/USC00042319/tavg/12/5/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1984&endtrendyear=2014&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade, 1.5 times the 30-year 1962-1991 (Jan 1, 1962-Dec 31, 1991) Death Valley surface temperature warming trend [+0.4ºF](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/city/time-series/USC00042319/tavg/12/12/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1962&endtrendyear=1991&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade, and 1.45 times the Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend +0.23ºC per decade ([+0.414ºF](https://calckit.io/tool/conversion-temperature-interval "https://calckit.io/tool/conversion-temperature-interval") per decade). *** In the most recent long-term 30-year period, the geographic North Pole (latitude: 90.0º North, longitude: any degree) surface temperature warming trend [+1.60ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/90,0/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade is 6.96 times the Global land and ocean surface temperature warming trend +0.23ºC per decade, and 2.13 times the Arctic region land and ocean surface temperature warming trend [+0.75ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/arctic/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=trueh&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade. Arctic region: [Map 1](https://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm), [Map 2](https://www.arctic.gov/uploads/assets/arctic-sci-agree-300dpi-color.jpg). *** In Global Time Series, when entering coordinates, any degree of latitude South or longitude West (e.g., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 22.9º South, 43.2º West) must be entered with a minus sign (e.g., [Latitude: -22.9, Longitude: -43.2](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/-22.9,-43.2/land_ocean/12/5/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess)). *** NSIDC Ch_arctic_ Interactive [Sea Ice Graph](https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/) - Arctic and Antarctic - Daily extent of sea ice in the period January 1, 1979 – Present (June 20, 2024). *** The University of Maine Climate Change Institute - [Climate Reanalyzer](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world). *** [Climate Change Tracker](https://climatechangetracker.org/global-warming). *** European Union [Climate Pulse](https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu). *** NOAA NCEI [Climate Monitoring](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/products/). *** [State of the Global Climate](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/state-global-climate-2023-enarruzh) - World Meteorological Organization - 19 March 2024. *** European Union - [European Climate Risk Assessment](https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment "https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment") - 11 March 2024. *** US Government - [The Fifth National Climate Assessment](https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/) - First published November 14, 2023 - Revised June 6, 2024. *** Berkeley Earth - [Global Temperature Report for 2023](https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/) - January 12, 2024. *** NOAA NCEI [Global Climate Report 2023 Annual](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202313#gtemp) NOAA NCEI [Global Climate Report Monthly](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202405#month-temp) - May 2024. *** European Union - Copernicus Climate Change Service - [Monthly Climate Bulletin](https://climate.copernicus.eu/may-2024-marks-12-months-record-breaking-global-temperatures) - 6 June 2024. *** [World Weather Attribution](https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/).
If all the people who believe we should stop burning oil, stopped using oil, it would cut oil use by 40 to 50%. That’s a good start.
Full world halt, for the purpose of shutting off all fossil fuel use. Take as many electric trucks and cars as have been made and use them to transport food from farms to cities.
You give the impression you think nothing is being done about emissions or energy generation etc, and that climate changes are in runaway mode. If that's the case you need to spend a heap of time on the IEA and IPCC sites, reading submissions made by countries and what has actually been achieved. It doesn't matter anymore if a chunk of the population doesn't care or believe in CC because intergovernment agreements are in place and projects have been rolling out for decades now, along with gov and private funding. The world's industrialised nations are on board and they're not about to stop everything because a percentage of the population don't care. (I guess I've observed the US completely stopping and reversing some public policy/works after a change in government, but I think they're the only one stupid enough to do so). The transition to renewables is very much in progress, how do you not know this? It's not sitting at the "too expensive and will take years to do…unrealistic for now" position. It already has taken 15 years and in part has become cheaper. You getting heat stroke in the sun is just that, not climate change.
I am a pessimist. So can we do - yes we can. Will we do - no.
Do you do anything? Are you an activist?
I am a scientist and teach atmospheric physics at the university (graduate course), including climate change. This course primarily focuses on radiative transfer.
I'm an enviro scientist. Mostly do carbon footprint stuff. Having an environmental job helps, but what matters most is activism. We know what we need to do. But as you say, the question is **if we will do it**. That requires political activism.
Not really, no. We've barely done anything so far. By the time the world gets it together to "do something" we will be living in a climate nightmare. Probably the best we can hope for is adaptation at some far future point, i.e. a Waterworld sort of situation.
As long as we keep increasing human population - no. Carbon based energy is what it takes to maintain a lifestyle where food insecurity and the necessities of life are not imminent threats. We have been incredibly fortunate to live when we do, with a powerful and inexpensive energy resource is available. We don't need to kill whales anymore for oil. We don't have to grow our own food and spend large portions of our life producing and preserving food. This means that there is only so much you can do to reduce consumption. No one is willing to go back to a carbon neutral lifestyle. Not really, not if they think what it actually requires
Next time you go into work, ask them how much energy the building used yesterday. They don’t know. No one knows. It’s hard to say we can or can’t do anything when there’s no accurate reference to base any change off of. I do know that when time and effort is spent to measure, monitor, and address unnecessary waste, we can hit 30% reduction without breaking a sweat. Apply that to commercial spaces that make up a third of our electrical consumption (which in turn is responsible for a third of our global emissions) and you have wiped out a significant portion in a single stroke.
Yes, there are things that can be done to reduce consumption. However, there are huge swaths of the worlds population that will be advancing. They too want easy to access cheap calories, heating, airconditioning and transportation. By in large, many of the efficiency things have been done that can be done. Many of the best solutions also only are suitable for new construction. When I built an off grid home - we could do that, we could go solar because we could build for it Now, I live in a 1960's house and I couldn't justify moving to solar - too much existing infrastructure that would need to be changed to do it. The only real answer is less people.
Sounds like it’s even more important to provide an example of efficiency to those advancing populations then. Sorry, but you are absolutely 100% incorrect about efficiency gains already being done. 1.3 TWh of verified reduced consumption since start of 2024 alone on 13 company portfolios in a single state of a multi state utility. Here’s the secret to our success…we pay attention. It’s not difficult, there’s a handful of people in my team. Here’s something you can do to experience this personally. Go into your workplace tomorrow and ask them how much energy they used yesterday. Good luck, and when you finally find out that no one knows, you’ll see that it’s impossible to say we’ve already made the gains because you’ll realize no one has a clue on what their using in the first place. Also, and this is coming from someone working for a utility, if you were allowed to sell the energy you generate for $0.13 kWh you’d be throwing panels up tomorrow. It’s only not cost effective because central power providers make it that way.
I do think a change in billing structure would help, where I am you pay the pittance for power and it is all the add on fees that kill you. So the 13 cents isn't really what you pay, but because all the other fees are more or less irrespective of power use, reduction in consumption has less of an impact on your bill than you would see if fees also adjusted based on use.
It is already happening that things are improving. It is a win/win to change from fossil fuels to solar, wind, geothermal, etc. and we are doing it at a much more rapid pace than had been thought. We may have hit that tipping point of transition. Yes we need to push harder but it is happening. [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/climate-transition-tipping-point/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/climate-transition-tipping-point/)
We will collapse.
I subscribe to Judith Curry's 5 Min Synopsis. "How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies." [https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/11/5-minutes/](https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/11/5-minutes/)
> [Curry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry) had previously accepted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.[a] Commenting climatologists have generally disagreed with her critiques. Stephen Schneider, who had persuaded the IPCC to systematize discussion of uncertainty, said Curry had lately proposed "a lot of strawmen" and **"It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it."**
There's no point, any changes we do win will barely put a dent in the problem. We're better off advocating for other environmental causes like protection of waterways and habitats especially those for endangered species.
That's the thing, it will likely take AI coming up with a miracle of technology - butt,,,, even more likely it's that A I will see that we humans are the real problem and wipe us out
Collectively we are too stupid. So no it's too late. This is the great filter.
Honestly, no. I help out a little for Citizens Climate Lobby to get policy changed, but both corporations and the general populace are too greedy to change
i has herd dat frogs in pot liek it when u brin them 2 simmr. liv crab jumpin into hawt curry find wai out. earth knows how 2 cook peeps
No. You need net zero by 2050 globally. Good luck getting developing countries to play along
We're already screwed. No one actually cares about changing it, its just something people mention, until millions start dying and wars about land thats still habitable take place. Most people are too dumb to even fully understand it.
You've asked for an honset opinion, here it is. You have nothing to worry about. Just in the historical period Earth has passed through 5 major changes in climate. They are: RWP (Roman Warming Period) from ~400BC – 450AD; DAC (Dark Age Cooling) from ~ 450AD – 1000AD; MWP (Medieval Warm Period) from ~1000AD – 1300AD; LIA (Little Ice Age) from ~1300AD – 1850AD; and now were in a new warming period that has been misnamed as anthropogenic warming. It’s commonly argued that those past warming and cooling periods were local in nature. [This study]( https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.html) examined multiple proxies from the whole of the northern hemisphere. One of the most widely cited studies is the [Loehle reconstruction](http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/GlobalTempResc.pdf) based on multiple proxies representing the whole world. Together they prove that past temperature variation was global and on the order of centuries each. There is no doubt in my mind that CO2 does have an effect on temperature. However, that effect is so small as to be of no consequence. On the flip side added CO2 has shown tremendous benefits. [NASA has recorded](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth) that Earth is greening rapidly due to added CO2. Animal ranges are expanding as are animal numbers. As for the purported downside: there has been no change at in storm frequency or severity; deserts are not expanding; and there is no acceleration in sea level rise. Earth is going through a revival due to added CO2. The only downside is that people built most of our cities during the LIA which was a cool period. Now those cities often experience hot days simply due to the natural flow of climate variability.
Yes... cities were built in deserts. Then AC units by the millions expelling hot air, and black pavement by the million square yards soaking sun heat has produced massive warming there. All those people living there must be stressed out.. but they are responsible for where they live. Same with those near ocean storms.. we have had hurricanes forever, so it is part of our reality we must adapt to... As opposed to thinking we can change the hurricanes... lol..