deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So in other words we have a population issue. We cutting down on green house gas emissions isn't going to amount to a lot if other parts of the world continue to reproduce like crazy.

Population is definitely an issue, as are cows for that matter (seriously). But anyone who takes a position that because of that, it is not worth trying to reduce our own emissions (which by the way are an order of magnitude higher per capita than the emerging populations' ) is being disingenuous.

[Izzle]

All the way on page 3 huh.

I suppose with the hurricanes, the earthquake and the various wildfires, we can talk about climate change.

These specific events cannot be solely attributed to climate change, however, their intensity could. Climate change is the common thread that connects all these events. Are these crazy weather events the new norm?

[DiracSpike]

Earthquakes have literally nothing at all to do with Climate Change.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Earthquakes have literally nothing at all to do with Climate Change.

True. They're because of the gays.

[troutman]

This podcast could be a good entry point for people with common questions about climate change.

Romm mentions Skeptical Science a few times - a blog that is good at debunking misinformation -
https://www.skepticalscience.com/

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/it...climate-change

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Joseph Romm about how the climate is changing and how we know that human behavior is the primary cause. They discuss why small changes in temperature matter so much, the threats of sea-level rise and desertification, the best and worst case scenarios, the Paris Climate Agreement, the politics surrounding climate science, and many other topics.

Joseph Romm is one of the country’s leading communicators on climate science and solutions. He was Chief Science Advisor for “Years of Living Dangerously,” which won the 2014 Emmy Award for Outstanding Nonfiction Series. He is the founding editor of Climate Progress, which Tom Friedman of the New York Times called “the indispensable blog.” In 2009, Time named him one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and Rolling Stone put him on its list of 100 “people who are reinventing America.” Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in low-carbon technology development and deployment. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He is the author of Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Earthquakes have literally nothing at all to do with Climate Change.

Im no scientist, so I'll take your word for it.

My overall point was talking about the extreme weather events and their intensity.

I mean, as a species, what can we do? I suppose giving the Paris accord some teeth would have been a start.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Im no scientist, so I'll take your word for it.

My overall point was talking about the extreme weather events and their intensity.

I mean, as a species, what can we do?

Continue improving technology, engineering, infrastracture and availability of energy, especially for the undeveloped world. Extreme weather events like floods used to kill hundreds of thousands and many of the deadliest hurricanes occurred hundreds of years ago.

I suppose giving the Paris accord some teeth would have been a start.

But then few important countries would have even joined.

[calf]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Earthquakes have literally nothing at all to do with Climate Change.

I think he meant fraccing.

*ducks*

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Continue improving technology, engineering, infrastracture and availability of energy, especially for the undeveloped world. Extreme weather events used to kill hundreds of thousands.

But then few important countries would have even joined.

You're suggesting that this is an engineering problem. But the fundamental issue remains - the increasing ferocity of these events. Full disclosure, I am basing this on pictures of Hurricane Andrew and its size relative to Hurricane Irma. Shouldn't we listen to the scientists and change human behaviour now rather than try to engineer our way out of these issues in the future?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Im no scientist, so I'll take your word for it.

My overall point was talking about the extreme weather events and their intensity.

I mean, as a species, what can we do? I suppose giving the Paris accord some teeth would have been a start.

Can we prove that intensity is even a factor that's increased due to climate change? It's basically guesswork and conjecture I think?

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Slava

Can we prove that intensity is even a factor that's increased due to climate change? It's basically guesswork and conjecture I think?

Add More energy (heat) to the system and it becomes more powerful. This has always been known. It is a fundamental aspect of chemistry.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Slava

Can we prove that intensity is even a factor that's increased due to climate change? It's basically guesswork and conjecture I think?

This is a good place to start:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hur...termediate.htm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Izzle

You're suggesting that this is an engineering problem. But the fundamental issue remains - the increasing ferocity of these events. Full disclosure, I am basing this on pictures of Hurricane Andrew and its size relative to Hurricane Irma. Shouldn't we listen to the scientists and change human behaviour now rather than try to engineer our way out of these issues in the future?

IN an ideal world this would be great however no country is willing to go through any pain to transition. So the only way out is for the non CO2 tech to be cost competitive with CO2 tech. So engineering needs to advance. There is no political solution. The incentives aren't there to make it happen.

So I think we need to start geo-enginneering solutions to climate change while we hope technology can catch up and save us.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by GGG

IN an ideal world this would be great however no country is willing to go through any pain to transition. So the only way out is for the non CO2 tech to be cost competitive with CO2 tech. So engineering needs to advance. There is no political solution. The incentives aren't there to make it happen.

So I think we need to start geo-enginneering solutions to climate change while we hope technology can catch up and save us.

The incentives aren't there yet. Could politicians be pressured to provide incentives to make CO2 tech cost competitive. Till such time that the CO2 tech reaches non-CO2 tech.

However, this also assumes a baseline that climate change is real and happening. I suppose, incentives won't be reached if there are climate change deniers in governmental positions of power.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Izzle

You're suggesting that this is an engineering problem. But the fundamental issue remains - the increasing ferocity of these events. Full disclosure, I am basing this on pictures of Hurricane Andrew and its size relative to Hurricane Irma.

Katrina was of comparable size:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.d0bd50d5d837

Shouldn't we listen to the scientists and change human behaviour now rather than try to engineer our way out of these issues in the future?

Human civilization is essentially all about engineering our way out of issue that the world throws at us. And modern human civilization is utterly dependent on huge amounts of energy, of which 80% is provided by fossil fuels and has barely budged even with the multi-trillion dollar investment in green technology made in the past decade. You can't just say that people need to get off fossil fuels, you have to offer solutions that provide low-CO2 energy at the same scale and cost.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Izzle

The incentives aren't there yet. Could politicians be pressured to provide incentives to make CO2 tech cost competitive. Till such time that the CO2 tech reaches non-CO2 tech.

However, this also assumes a baseline that climate change is real and happening. I suppose, incentives won't be reached if there are climate change deniers in governmental positions of power.

Yep, once you accept the political reality that the US sucks we need to act now on other options that delay warming.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Izzle

The incentives aren't there yet. Could politicians be pressured to provide incentives to make CO2 tech cost competitive. Till such time that the CO2 tech reaches non-CO2 tech.

By some estimates, the world has spent $4 trillion on renewable energy since 2000 with virtually no difference in the global energy budget.

http://euanmearns.com/worldwide-inve...o-show-for-it/

The world has already provided significant subsidies to try to spur on green energy and in places like Germany, it's done little to reduce CO2 emissions while increasing energy costs for the average consumer. And we all know about Ontario, Europeans and Australians may accept 30-40c/kWh electricity but Canadians won't.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Katrina was of comparable size:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.d0bd50d5d837

Human civilization is essentially all about engineering our way out of issue that the world throws at us. And modern human civilization is utterly dependent on huge amounts of energy, of which 80% is provided by fossil fuels and has barely budged even with the multi-trillion dollar investment in green technology made in the past decade. You can't just say that people need to get off fossil fuels, you have to offer solutions that provide low-CO2 energy at the same scale and cost.

I'll be the first to admit I don't have any solutions. I suppose the time to make changes was in the 1980s when ExxonMobil first noticed the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In a way, what are humans willing to deal with? The costs associated with a reduced (but still sharp) decrease in the standard of living or a shock to the system (like hurricanes) every so often.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yep, once you accept the political reality that the US sucks we need to act now on other options that delay warming.

And that China, while it's has greatly expanded its wind, solar and nuclear generation, is still increasing coal generation.



https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/201...gy-statistics/

[Fuzz]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...eoengineering/

As climate change gets worse, and as no clear path to cutting down emissions in a major way emerges, scientists are increasingly considering ways we could re-engineering the Earth itself to cool it down. One of these geoengineering ideas is to pump gases into out upper atmosphere. As we've seen after volcanic eruptions, sulfuric gasses like SO4 will marginally shade the Earth by blocking certain segments of incoming light.
This sunglasses-effect, if sustained, could help to put the brakes on our planet's rising temps. But according to a new study out today, it also could slow one of the most severe effects of climate change: the increase of severe hurricanes.

See, this kind of thing that makes me more nervous than anthropogenic warming. Assuming they could get it right(which is a big assumption) who gets to control the thermostat? Maybe the US decides their country is more productive a few degrees cooler, and Canada ends up a frozen wasteland. Maybe China has their own plans. What is the perfect global temperature, anyway?