Climate-Driven Heat Extremes May Make Earth Too Hot for Billions of Humans (phys.org) 227
An anonymous reader shared this report from Phys.org:
If global temperatures increase by 1 degrees Celsius (C) or more than current levels, each year billions of people will be exposed to heat and humidity so extreme they will be unable to naturally cool themselves, according to interdisciplinary research from the Penn State College of Health and Human Development, Purdue University College of Sciences and Purdue Institute for a Sustainable Future... Humans can only withstand certain combinations of heat and humidity before their bodies begin to experience heat-related health problems, such as heat stroke or heart attack. As climate change pushes temperatures higher around the world, billions of people could be pushed beyond these limits...
Results of the study indicate that if global temperatures increase by 2 degreesC above pre-industrial levels, the 2.2 billion residents of Pakistan and India's Indus River Valley, the one billion people living in eastern China and the 800 million residents of sub-Saharan Africa will annually experience many hours of heat that surpass human tolerance... Troublingly, researchers said, these regions are also in lower-to-middle income nations, so many of the affected people may not have access to air conditioning or any effective way to mitigate the negative health effects of the heat.
Results of the study indicate that if global temperatures increase by 2 degreesC above pre-industrial levels, the 2.2 billion residents of Pakistan and India's Indus River Valley, the one billion people living in eastern China and the 800 million residents of sub-Saharan Africa will annually experience many hours of heat that surpass human tolerance... Troublingly, researchers said, these regions are also in lower-to-middle income nations, so many of the affected people may not have access to air conditioning or any effective way to mitigate the negative health effects of the heat.
How to... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well seasoned? I think they would find our oceans overly salty. They might have to put a giant space potato in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Made me think of the 1996 film The Arrival [wikipedia.org].
Re:How to... (Score:4, Informative)
Made me think of the 1996 film The Arrival [wikipedia.org].
To Serve Man [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think those deodorants, sun lotions and other "beauty products" are for except to marinade you?
You thought it's so you're more appealing to humans? Have you ever smelled that shit?
Re: (Score:3)
Two words, cocoa butter.
I grew up in Santa Cruz and that smell is forever sexy in my mind because the most gorgeous bodies on the beach were coated in it. No bets on whether those women got skin cancer later, but wowsers
Re: (Score:3)
Cocoa butter and coconut oil... yeah...
Can't eat a Bounty without getting a boner.
Please fix the headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Please fix the headline (Score:2)
To hot, or not to hot. That is the question.
Re: (Score:2)
It's mutchly to hot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not "Earth too Hot" but "Earth Too Hot". "To" is a preposition and so isn't capitalised in titles, but "too" isn't a preposition so most style guides say it should be capitalised in titles.
No shit, Sherlock. (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't news. This is man-made eco-disaster and man-made climate change 101 and the problem has been well know for at least 5 decades.
I'm in Germany and the summer here has been too hot for me for the last 3 years already, with this year luckyly having an excess of cold and rainy days in the summer. We still had too little rainfall overall, and the replenishment of the German water table is already lagging 2 years behind. This will only get worse. The German forrests are basically history as are the glaciers.
We are screwed already. How much though is up to us. I still see a chance that modern civilization manages to survive but time is running out quickly.
Re:No shit, Sherlock. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm in Germany [...] We are screwed already. How much though is up to us.
What if we didn't close down nuclear plants but instead prioritized them over burning lignite/coal?
This observation is not specifically directed at you but rather at the overall actions of the German government, which sets a concerning precedent for our collective efforts.
I still see a chance that modern civilization manages to survive but time is running out quickly.
I am not really worried about (modern) civilization: it will survive. Just not everyone will, and inequalities will increase. At some point, force will be used to keep slaves, sorry I mean people in poor countries making stuffs for us while barely surviving, in line.
Unfortunately, humanity has not much changed in the last 2000 years.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, force will be used to keep slaves, sorry I mean people in poor countries making stuffs for us while barely surviving, in line. Unfortunately, humanity has not much changed in the last 2000 years.
Within the next 50 years I think the majority of the US population is going to fall into deep poverty. The US is rapidly declining in influence and power, and our backslide in democratic norms is going to make us vulnerable to external competitors. Without the US to align with, I don't know how other western countries will be able to defend against the rise of authoritarian powers.
Re:No shit, Sherlock. (Score:4, Informative)
FUD again from Amimojo.
The reactor vessels were cracked
Sure. Any sources for that? Of course not, because you are making things up as usual.
The fact that you get modded up to Insightful just shows how crazy your anti-nuclear friends are. Fortunately, you usually get down-modded once sane people start to use their mod points.
The nuclear plants were at EOL anyway, and would cost vast sums of money to keep them going
No they were not. Nuclear plants in the US last 60+ years. France is extending the life of its nuclear plants from 40 to 60, and up to 80 years. In a nuclear plant, everything can be replaced, except the reactor vessel. And those don't break in 20-30 years, which was the kind of age some nuclear plants from Germany were closed.
Germany closed its nuclear plants for questionable reasons, influenced by anti-nuclear sentiments and driven by an economic strategy to undercut their neighbor France, which possessed a competitive nuclear industry beyond Germany's reach. Consequently, Germany opted for Russian gas and later turned to LNG from the US when the former option became unsustainable. This decision, viewed from a CO2 emissions perspective, is stupid.
Contrary to claims, Germany's actions indicate that it has not been, is not, and will never be the green champion it wants to become.
All that money was better spent on renewables, which have been displacing coal. As more people switch to heat pumps, less gas is used for heating. The goal is net zero, not short term gaming of the numbers.
Sure thing, mister fairy-tale. Why care at all about studies [cmu.edu] that show nuclear plants shutdown in Germany slowed down their exit from coal...
France is far closer to net zero than Germany, and has been for the past 50 years. Germany is basically committing economic suicide at this point, and once enough of the german citizens start to say "no", it will be too late to change the situation anyway.
To be fair, they will actually have served as an example of what not do do regarding climate change. At least they will have been slightly useful.
Re: (Score:3)
The Ishar 2 reactor had a leak right before it was recently closed.
And that "leak" did not compromise security, nor did it damage the environment. Not like some fires from solar panels farms from instance, which tend to propage to nearby forests ( [yahoo.com] study in the UK [www.gov.uk]). Not saying that solar panels are bad, but just giving you a reference point so that you can see how your irrational fear of "nuclear" makes you blow any small incident out of proportion.
What are called leaks can be simple things as for example an oil leak in one of the four redundant systems used for emergency sh
Re: (Score:3)
The nuclear plants were at EOL anyway, and would cost vast sums of money to keep them going, and still require compromises in safety.
Extending the life of nuclear plants is dirt cheap with similar LCOE to that of wind or solar while offering significantly more value being a dispatachable source of energy.
The reactor vessels were cracked, they needed extensive and constant monitoring and are liable to be shut down at any time. Who is going to invest in something that might break at any moment without notice?
Which of the 3 plants had cracked reactor vessels?
Re:No shit, Sherlock. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had modpoints to downvote your lies.
1. The power plants were perfectly operable at a reasonable cost for decades. Just like the ones in neighboring countries.
2. The current trajectory of Germany is an ecocide. It's one of the worst CO2 offender in the EU w.r.t. energy production and Germany is still destroying vast areas of land to extract coal in open pit mines.
Re: (Score:2)
All that money was better spent on renewables, which have been displacing coal.
Yes, renewables are the cheapest energy there is. Which is why Germans pay four times what I do for electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that much of the cost of your electricity is externalised.
Re: (Score:2)
And you guess wrong. Try again fanboy.
Oh by the way, Germany heavily subsidized its solar/wind deployment (500 billion in the last 30 years, is that enough for you?), yet their electricity is so expensive. Go figure.
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly 69% of electricity in Canada is renewable, the bulk of that being hydro. Renewables are cheap.
Hydro is cheap. Onshore wind is cheap. Solar is expensive, as is offshore wind. The cost of renewable energy is all over the place so it is not accurate to claim all renewable energy is cheap. Even with hydro and onshore wind we can see prices rise as dams run dry and the winds calm. Remove Canada's supply of nuclear power and watch electricity costs from hydro go up, that's just how supply vs. demand economics work. Remove supply and demand will drive up prices even if the cost of production doesn't
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh, again,, someone who was informed about this before, speading misinformation:
There are different electricity prices. In Europa electricity is traded at markets. The prices their are usually not higher in Germany than - say - France. For example, see the EPEX SPOT dayhead market: https://www.epexspot.com/en/ma... [epexspot.com]
At the moment: Germany €133.70 France: €133.51
Household prices are different. Those are indeed much higher in Germany than elsewhere. Those are affected by taxes, fees, etc. which are
Re:No shit, Sherlock. (Score:5, Informative)
Seems unlikely, given that coal use in Germany has been falling for a long time now, and they have a legal requirement to close all coal plants by 2038. Thing is, the main coal producing region has set a date of 2030 for ending coal power production, so chances are most if not all coal fired power stations in Germany will close by then.
If they started building new nuclear today, it might just be ready in time for the 2038 deadline. Thing is, if the current trend continues, by then renewables will make it redundant anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
they have a legal requirement to close all coal plants by 2038
Germany has a history of pushing and changing the dates "required by law" when it fits them:
- end of ICE: they are the ones who introduced loopholes in legislation to make it useless, and the ones lobbying now to exploit those loopholes
- end of gas heaters: they changed the date for the end of new installations for those... like, this year...
Their own ministry energy said that they needed to keep burning coal to keep people from freezing (while they were telling South Africa to stop burning coal... the iron [euractiv.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Seems unlikely, given that coal use in Germany has been falling for a long time now
Yes, they have been falling for a long time now but for the last four or five years fossil fuel consumption has been increasing. I suspect that when the 2023 numbers come out that they will be back to where they were 10 years ago.
and they have a legal requirement to close all coal plants by 2038.
That's quite meaningless. There's been studies done many times, by many different organizations, and there is a consistent conclusion that Germany (and many other nations) will not reduce their CO2 emissions without nuclear fission. You want to show otherwise? Then please post
Re: (Score:3)
That's quite meaningless. There's been studies done many times, by many different organizations, and there is a consistent conclusion that Germany (and many other nations) will not reduce their CO2 emissions without nuclear fission. You want to show otherwise? Then please post some links, then I'll post links to papers showing how those studies are nonsense and do so using the numbers in those same studies.
Although I don't disagree here, I would like to point out that you have burden of proof backwards.
When you assert that there are "studies done many times", it's your burden of proof to provide citations. Saying "if you don't believe me then it's your burden of proof to provide links" is backwards": no, it's not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... [wiley.com]
Re:No shit, Sherlock. (Score:4, Informative)
Although I don't disagree here, I would like to point out that you have burden of proof backwards.
With every debate there's always a secondary debate on who has the burden of proof.
Here's how I'm seeing this. France has shown consistently low CO2 emissions from their energy sector, and there does not appear to be any opposition to the claim that this is in large part from them using nuclear power for much of their electricity generation. Now we have Germany tells to "hold my beer" as they demonstrate they can do better without nuclear power. Well, we've been holding that beer so long now to see the results that it is not only warm and flat but half of it has evaporated away in the sun. Where's the evidence that we can support a modern economy anywhere in the world without nuclear power or fossil fuels?
France has demonstrated for many decades that it is at least possible to run a modern electrical grid with nuclear fission producing at least 70% of the power. Similar successes from using nuclear fission to produce electricity with low costs, high levels of safety, high levels of reliability, low levels of pollution, and low levels of CO2 come from all over the world. Where the evidence to contradict this claim? Is the accident at Chernobyl this evidence? Three Mile Island? Or Fukushima? Those are three reactors out of what may be over 600 civil and military nuclear power reactors built since the 1950s, and those that made the most notable levels of death and destruction were all built before 1980. Has there been anything of note from a reactor built after 1980? Or perhaps 1990? I recall a diver drowning in a cooling pool at some nuclear reactor, which while tragic and avoidable is only tangentially related to the safety of nuclear power as a whole. Most accidents at nuclear power plants are trip-and-fall kinds of accidents which get reported all the time in anything industrial, including wind and solar power. More people die from wind and solar power than nuclear power, most likely purely because we get more energy per work-hour from nuclear fission than any other energy source. With fewer people there's just fewer chances of trip-and-fall accidents, or more complicated accidents like a drowned diver.
I've been playing this burden of proof game on Slashdot for far too long. I'll question renewable energy being able to hold up to the claims given about it only for someone to place the burden of proof on me. So, to prove I'm being honest about my doubts I provide links to sources. Then there's a claim that the sources are biased, or cherry picked, or whatever, so I provide more sources to back up the first source I give. Then those are rejected over some bullshit. I realized that the people I've been debating play this burden of proof game on me, claiming they bear no burden to prove anything. How does that work?
Germany, France, UK, and so many other nations have a long history of safe, reliable, low CO2 energy from nuclear fission, a history that goes back decades. Recently we've seen demands to close already operating nuclear power plants, and never build another nuclear power plant, because they claim we can do better with renewable energy. Oh,really? Any proof of that claim? It looks to me like we've been doing pretty well with civil and military nuclear power for nearly 70 years. You want the world to walk away from nuclear power now? Based on what? Some reactor built in Chernobyl by people inebriated on Soviet doctrine and cheap vodka? A reactor built from what is believed to be a design stolen from Western sources, and rejected by those that created it because of stability issues they discovered late in the design process? That's like saying a 2023 Tesla Roadster is not safe because of what was read out of "Unsafe at Any Speed" from 1965.
It seems mighty suspicious to me that when renewable energy advocates are challenged on the basis of their praises that they run to claiming the burden of proof lies elsewhere than
Re: (Score:3)
Although I don't disagree here, I would like to point out that you have burden of proof backwards.
With every debate there's always a secondary debate on who has the burden of proof.
There can be ambiguous cases, but this isn't one. You made an assertion, saying that there are "studies done many times", and told anybody who disagrees that they should show links.
Nope. Not their burden of proof, yours.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Not their burden of proof, yours.
I gave a link to Wikipedia where it can be seen that fossil fuel use has been going up in the last few years. I believe I have satisfied my burden of proof, at least to a point in which there must be some minimal effort to show that the Wikipedia article is somehow lacking.
But no, nothing to support the claim of how renewable energy is supposed to be able to replace nuclear fission and fossil fuels. Nothing. Nada, Zilch. I'd expect people with such a deep and adamant belief in the merits of renewable en
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are geographically bound solutions. Most places near a river have already thought of hydro and focusing on hydro in a desert doesn't make sense. Likewise for solar and wind. For places where the geographically available source of energy has been reasonably tapped and have not met power demands -- that leaves fossil fuels or nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to have Octobers around here with temperatures close to the freezing point. This year, we got temperatures like in a normal August.
We're fucked. But that's ok, I'm 50, I don't need that planet much longer, so, frankly, I can't be assed to worry anymore. I used to, but then I noticed, hey, if people who are young and/or have kids don't give a shit, why the fuck should I?
Re: (Score:2)
"if people who are young and/or have kids don't give a shit, why the fuck should I?"
Because it is important not to be a self-centered prick.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it is important not to be a self-centered prick.
The people having the kids without a plan to offset their carbon emissions are the self-centered pricks. The rest of us are just trying to survive their hubris.
It has been too late for many years. The present day temps and weather are part of CO2 put into the atmosphere already, and that happened over almost 3 centuries.
The plan, such as it is, is to mitigate the damages by working hard to eliminate as many sources of Greenhouse gases as possible. But there are problems.
An technically sound and sure fire way to do this is revert the world to pre-industrial revolution times, with a corresponding depopulation to early to mid 18th century levels.
There are si
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The present day temps and weather are part of CO2 put into the atmosphere already, and that happened over almost 3 centuries.
a hundred years mostly. [ourworldindata.org]
Of course. The beginning of the Industrial revolution, generally considered to be around 1750, had a population of around 500 million. 1900 about a billion. Now we're almost 8.1 billion, and despite the popular narrative of only USA adding CO2 into the atmosphere, it's everyone.
This is why people are criticized for daring to mention that the reproduction frenzy of the world will not ease up. Some people even speak of a sweet point of around 10 billion. Hey a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon yo
Re: (Score:2)
nice deflection there. so your personal footprint on this planet is zero? kudos ...
besides being nonsense that view has a grim side, though. birth control and education are far less prevalent among poor people. so you are blaming global warming on those who actually contributed the least to it? that's perverse.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm done. Save your own planet, I'm out of here.
No worries. They have climate change solved. Wind and solar will save us and is cheaper than anything else, you don't have to do anything.
On a more serious note, I agree that when I see people protesting nuclear power and hydro dams and transmission lines and silica and lithium mines etc. that is it easy to just say fuck it, it is obviously not an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell yes it is an emergency. But why should I bother with an emergency patient if the people depending on him don't give a shit? I'm not the fucking ambulance.
Re: (Score:2)
We had almost 80 this week. 80F. 27C for the Euros here. In October! I am old, I admit, but I remember times when we had snow falling in October. Granted, it didn't stay and melt away during the day, but any temperature past 15C/60F was considered impossible, insane and you better not consider going out in a t-shirt if you didn't want to be called a total freak. Get your coats, kids!
I remember Winters when we had to go out the windows because the snow was up past the door. Power being out for days because t
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't care about the future then please stay silent and stop voting. Don't be like these people. [nextcity.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'll even vote for the parties that claim to be ecology-conscious.
Since they all are nowadays, it doubly-doesn't matter. Once, because voting is meaningless, no matter how you vote, nothing changes. And second, it's lip-service for all of them anyway.
So don't you worry about me voting. It won't have any relevant impact on this planet, why would it have any impact on the planet if it already doesn't have any on thing people actually care about?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't care about the future then please stay silent and stop voting.
They have taken a page from the strategy of all the other useless protesters. I got a good laugh recently reading about a large group of people organizing against wind turbines off the coast of New Jersey. They actually came right out and said “The objective is to hold them up and make the cost so overwhelming that they’ll go home.” Right out of the anti-nuclear playbook. Makes me smile. What is good for the goose and all that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
For a free society, it is necessary to hate hate, [wikipedia.org] and to fear fear. [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
>We're fucked. But that's ok, I'm 50, I don't need that planet much longer, so, frankly, I can't be assed to worry anymore. I used to, but then I noticed, hey, if people who are young and/or have kids don't give a shit, why the fuck should I?
I'm also around the half-century mark. I've been bitching about the obvious stupidity of many things we collectively do for my entire adult life, and I will probably continue to do so until I die because truth is truth and stupid is stupid. An economy based on gree
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We wouldn't have to lose 90% of our standard of living. Note the we in this sentence. We could actually have it all. Granted, no 5-mile-a-gallon guzzlers SUVs. Then again, I don't need a car that can transport a university football team if I only have two kids. I really wonder how people got by with the cars of the 1960s when they actually had MORE kids. But aside of things we really don't need that only let us compensate for puny little dicks, I can't think of anything we would have to do without.
But it wo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I really wonder how people got by with the cars of the 1960s when they actually had MORE kids.
I don't wonder at all. Have you seen cars from the 1960s? They had much more legroom, to the point people could sit on the floor in the backseat and still have room for someone to sit. There were no seat belts, and the seating was typically a bench, so there was nothing to define how many people could or should sit other than the width of their hips and whatever they defined as "personal space". The cars were generally HUGE, with big engines, which allowed for plenty of space and power to move many peop
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely.
Communally it can be done much more efficiently. We'd still have a drop in standard of living, but it wouldn't be so bad. Trying to save the world solo is just an exercise in flagellation.
Here's another 'imagine' for you: Imagine 20 years ago we'd been allowed to drive modified golf carts that could do 50km/h (30mph).
I've done the stats for my personal commute going from suburbia to downtown Toronto - rarely does the average speed exceed 60km/h, mostly because the closer you get to the core, th
Re: (Score:2)
If what you say is true, and I'm not going to dispute it in the least, then I expect someone to eventually fill that market gap with road legal battery-electric vehicles.
I agree with your estimation of there being a large portion of our driving being met with a fairly simple and low cost vehicle powered by lead-acid batteries. This was proven in many ways by the popularity of the GM EV1 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) and that was a quarter century ago. Shortages of cobalt, lithium, and/or other mat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've known what increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would do since the late 19th century.
Will make us hotlings (Score:2)
Make Earth to Hot
now hotlings, hotman, hotmo sapiens
Exasperated (Score:2, Interesting)
We have all of the solutions to climate change such as:
Electric / Arc steel and pig-iron smelting.
Carbon neutral cement.
Cheap electricity production
Electricity Storage (so many ways)
Electric transport for road, rail and sea.
All that's needed is for idiot people to stop voting for corrupt politicians that are getting in the way of backing solutions.
At this point we should be making the funding of further fossil fuel exploration illegal, except we're not. In the UK the gov't is continuing to throw billions of
Re:Exasperated (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of socialist democracy is to mitigate the more extreme effects of capitalism, e.g. universal healthcare, free education, & social safety net, even that is being steadily eroded until we're left as post-democracy serfs to the super-rich. We don't get much of a say in how or when we die from global heating.
The key issue facing our super-rich overlords is how they're going to maintain control over us when things get really bad & large crowds take to the streets with pitch forks, e.g. Where's the most secure place to be? & How will they prevent their private security from turning against them? This is how our beloved "philanthropists" think.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I don't recall saying we have a functioning democracy but otherwise agree. I don't expect low-IQ, lazy, deluded, insane, sociopathic or ignorant people AKA the majority to recuse themselves from voting any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
...low-IQ, lazy, deluded, insane, sociopathic or ignorant people AKA the majority...
Well, that IS how the corporate media portrays us. Do you believe it has any broad basis in reality? Or do you think it's cruel victim-blaming by our illustrious elites?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think people aren't like this, evidence points to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a theory, it's a confession [theintercept.com].
When a shitheel tells you they're a shitheel, believe them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem, you have only listed one solution, which is reducing greenhouse gases.
How about coming up with so other ideas, because the first is patently no going to do the job, for multiple reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you even replying top my post? There are 5 solutions listed which all can lead to substantially reduced CO2 output.
Re: (Score:2)
DId you read mine? You admit that every one of your "solutions" is about reducing CO2, those are all the same thing! Reducing CO2 is one solution. Please provide solution #2 which is not about CO2.
Your tunnel vision is contributing to the global warming problem.
Re: (Score:3)
As an analogy, 5 apples are 1 apple because they are an apple.
Your assertion and conclusion are nonsense.
I should propose a solution that is not about CO2 because? CO2 released due to mankind's activities is the main cause of global warming. The best solution is to not increase global warming further.
Re: (Score:2)
"The best solution is to not increase global warming further." We all want to reduce warming. What is the best way?
What is the science supporting CO2 reduction as the only or best solution. Answer this and I shall leave content.
Re: (Score:3)
"What is the science supporting CO2 reduction "
It's called climate science, if you want to learn about it you are free to do so, google learn climate science. Or google: "is CO2 the largest cause of global warming, evidence, papers" The answer is yes, there is scientific consensus on this.
Re: (Score:2)
You misquoted me by leaving out the rest of my sentence. Therefore I am done with this conversation.
I shall take my leave by saying that obviously CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the cause of warming. But you still refuse to answer my question - what are the best solutions?
Re: (Score:2)
All that's needed is for idiot people to stop voting for corrupt politicians that are getting in the way of backing solutions.
The way the US Senate is run there's an incentive to elect incumbents, and the way elections are run in most states there's a high bar to clear in running for Senate. This means once in US Senate it's very easy to stay in that seat, and very difficult to run against them.
What's been keeping the one solution we need for lowering CO2 emissions, nuclear fission, is a small (but powerful) group of US Senators that have been in their seats for decades. We are seeing nature take its course and have these senato
Re: (Score:2)
idiot people
You have the core of the problem right there. Without that, we would have started to act decisively in the 1980's and everything would be fine at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is the energy source that should be developed to solve actual problem of burning coal, gas, oil for energy production.
I agree, and judging from what I'm seeing in reporting on the energy industry there's general agreement that we need nuclear fission, continued burning of fossil fuels, or we face an energy shortage. With things getting kinetic (as opposed to merely trade wars and more "cold" battles) there's going to be more openness to nuclear power to fill in for the lack of fossil fuels, and just commodities in general since a lack of energy means shortages of materials for renewable energy projects. It appears people
To hot or not to hot ... (Score:2)
... that is the question.
Editorial snarkiness aside ... okay. Fine. Then let's go nuclear.
Until you support that, you are just virtue signalling, not actually doing anything or encouraging anything useful.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with nuclear power done right. The reactor in South Carolina that has cracked pipes has inadequate maintenance. I'd be fine with it if it improved there. However, it's the Gen4+ reactors, that can use nuclear waste as fuel, that will be the killer apps if built.
Re: (Score:2)
However, it's the Gen4+ reactors, that can use nuclear waste as fuel, that will be the killer apps if built.
The advanced third generation reactors are doing great when and where they've been given a proper chance to compete and managed by people that give a damn about proper large project management. I expect 3rd and 4th generation nuclear power to coincide for some time, with 3rd generation taking on the large power needs and 4th generation being experimented with on smaller scales until we develop a better understanding of the engineering challenges these new technologies pose.
There is nothing wrong with 3rd g
Re: (Score:2)
The last gasp of the fanatics supporting a dying industry. That, incidentally, cannot help at all globally and this is a global problem in case you have not noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is rich, especially coming from a die-hard fossil fuels enthusiast. By all means, continue the fervent burning of your lignite, coal, and gas, as your economy trails behind in the dust.
Scientists research this (Score:2)
Here I'll get you started:
Wind project canceled, reason: slightly to very unprofitable https://www.rigzone.com/news/w... [rigzone.com]
Electric cars too expensive, reason: cheaper electric cars might be breaking market rules https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Canceled solor project, reason: local opponents who said solar power would hurt the community by taking farmland out of production, reducing property values and damaging soil and water. https://abcnew [go.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just what is holding up adoption of climate mitigating changes?
An energy shortage.
The nations best prepared for a shift to a net zero carbon economy are those with an abundance of fossil fuel reserves. With that energy beneath their feet they can build hydroelectric dams, nuclear fission power plants, onshore wind projects, and other methods of producing low cost and low carbon energy. Without fossil fuels to "jump start" their economy there's no getting to net zero carbon. France is one nation that is in a good place to lower their CO2 emissions as they have built
That's not even the problem (Score:2)
Troublingly, researchers said, these regions are also in lower-to-middle income nations, so many of the affected people may not have access to air conditioning or any effective way to mitigate the negative health effects of the heat.
They could build underground dwellings. The problem is that food plants can't function in those weather conditions either and taking your food underground requires more equipment than just a hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And it just takes one day that is too hot and your crops are gone.
may (Score:2, Troll)
May. Won't.
Summary seems to ignore a major point (Score:4, Interesting)
But they'll still cast themselves as the victim.
Hate to say it (Score:3)
But essentially that is the problem correcting itself after humans proved unwilling and incapable to do anything effective about it in advance. Not nice, but that is what nature does to species that outgrow their niche.
Re:Make Earth cool again (Score:4, Funny)
Humans will be hipsters.
We'll all have died out before it was cool.
Re: (Score:2)
To whit: Climate change is still the top issue in the 2024 election [thehill.com] -- The Hill, October 12.
Re: (Score:2)
Opinion>Energy and Environment
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
At least they are honest about it.
Re: (Score:3)
I really wanted to mod the AC post "Funny" just on the strength of that "DumberThanABagOfHammers" crack. (Really, what is up with that name and that sig? Is it meant as Andy Kaufman-esque trolling, sort of like the Tony Clifton character, or are you actually that narcissistic and clueless?)
But I also wanted to comment. It's bizarre to me that people will debate each other over issues of fact which can be settled by a simple Google search (e.g., "CO2 emissions per capita"). The reality is that contribut
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's just that they don't want to change their way of living one bit. Nobody is willing to make any compromises whatsoever.
Exactly that.
And then there's this hilarious notion that when the world is in deep trouble, humanity will magically morph into a blockbuster movie cast, join forces, and conquer climate change like it's a big bad villain. Ta-da! Problem solved, right?
But here's the kicker: CO2 emissions and climate change are like slamming on the brakes in a car headed straight for a brick wall. The catch? The car decides to actually start slowing down a whopping 20 years later. That's why all the IPCC scenarios (ranging fr
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yes, white men today are totally responsible for what white men did in Africa hundreds of years ago.
Sure.
Do your guilty feelings from the crimes committed by people long dead who are unrelated to you make you feel better about doing nothing about the situation today?
What are YOU personally doing for Africa besides mewling about it online? I'm sure your virtue signaling and guilt matters a lot to them.
And let's remember, since you're such a history genius, that white men are not the only people who fucked u
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea - at least where the water table is more than a few dozen feet below the surface.
With LED lighting needing to produce a relatively small portion of the spectrum to satisfy humans (and houseplants), a solar panel can illuminate a larger area than itself. As you've already pointed out, building underground steadies temperatures, though where I live it's still going to be way, way too cold during the winter months and heating will still be required.
But beyond that, all that freed up surface i
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and next we move agriculture underground as well. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
You are doing the lying wrong. You are supposed to repeat the lie three times to make it truth.
Re: (Score:2)
That's called the "broom wagon" [wikipedia.org] effect.
What can do (or not do) whatever we want, bitch about nuclear (hello Amimojo) and tell lies about it, hope for the best, or anything else... In the end, physics always win.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to reduce the world's population by a few billion people, and this is one way of doing.
I don't like where that logic takes us. That's allowing billions to die of hunger, thirst, heat, and whatever else because they "deserve" to die from some sins they committed.
There's more than enough arable land to produce all the food we need for twice the planet's current human population. With wise application of low cost and low CO2 power from onshore wind, hydro (also helpful for flood and drought management in addition to energy), geothermal, and nuclear fission we can produce all the power we need