Yes or No: “climate change” is an existential threat

Yesyesyesyesyesyesyes

Stop making these dumb@ss posts

Yes - if you are a windmill salesman.

No - if you are a petroleum engineer.

Yes.

Regardless of whether you think that it is man-made or naturally occurring, changes in weather patterns, deep sea currents, sea level rise, famine, droughts, habitat destruction, etc. will reshape economies and shift geopolitical power. The power grid situation in Texas proved how short sighted policies and cronyism will cause flat footed nations, including the United States, to suffer.

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Yes.

Regardless of whether you think that it is man-made or naturally occurring, changes in weather patterns, deep sea currents, sea level rise, famine, droughts, habitat destruction, etc. will reshape economies and shift geopolitical power. The power grid situation in Texas proved how short sighted policies and cronyism will cause flat footed nations, including the United States, to suffer.

Changes in climate are going to happen as long as humans exist. Changing our environment to better suit us is what we do. Unless you want us to go back in caves this is going to happen.

The idea that climate change is going to be this insurmountable threat is absurd. We will deal with it the same way we do every other challenge, by developing technology to adapt. The actual studies show the impact on global GDP due to climate change is we develop technology to adapt is minimal, while trying to limit emissions has a severe negative impact and far greater impact on the poorest segment of the population. The idea that there will be mass starvation or other ills from climate change is not factually supported.

You point out the Texas failure. Besides the point that was a once in a 100 year event for the locale the renewable energy production that we have been subsidizing went almost to 0 during the event. Yes, fossil fuel production decreased but far less than renewables. If Texas had more renewable which is what the climate change activists call for they would have been in worse shape. This is a major problem with the climate change grift. They push for wind and solar which are not economical or useful while pushing against nuclear which is the real solution. This has nothing to do with the best solution but because the climate activists are largely invested in solar and wind. This is where the crony capitalists are.

Hi jamin!

No

Exactly. You simply can’t run a country our size on only renewable energy.

Yes.

A recent investigation of large bird die off events found something that was unprecedented. Bird die offs happen from time to time and are usually traced to some virus or parasite that infected all the birds. But the more recent die offs were found to be due to starvation.

40% of the US honey bee colonies died off in 2018-19. And a similar percentage of the world's insect population is reported to be in decline.

This is due to habitat loss due to global warming and human development. If there are no honey bees, there will be no food.

Then, you have massive glacier melts that threaten to cause the Mekong and Yangtze rivers to run dry, depriving over a billion people of drinking water and water for crop irrigation. In the US, western drought threatens agriculture production in the San Fernando Valley where must of our vegetables are grown.

And these are just near term problems. There is also the very grave risk of hitting a climate tipping point and having warming that is 6+ deg F. That would cause catastrophic sea level rise, turn bread baskets like Nebraska/Iowa into deserts and make a good portion of the world uninhabitable.

The cost of transitioning to carbon neutral energy is tiny compared to the cost of trying to adjust to a global market for food with Asia losing most of its domestic grain production due to loss of glacier fed rivers or having about a half billion people living in low lying areas in Bangladesh and India get flooded out due to sea levels rising. It is shocking that the issue is even debated given the obvious benefits of renewable energy (no smog, toxic emissions, no Middle East wars, etc.).

No. "Climate change" happens slowly and is easy to adjust to. Droughts won't even exist in the future once a few more desalination plants get built.

Actual Engineer wrote:

The idea that climate change is going to be this insurmountable threat is absurd. We will deal with it the same way we do every other challenge, by developing technology to adapt....

...The idea that there will be mass starvation or other ills from climate change is not factually supported.

^This.

So far, the net benefit of climate change has been positive. Deserts are greening, for example. Fewer people are dying from extreme cold than are dying from extreme heat.

So far, none of the dire predictions have come true. Polar bears are doing fine. Sea level rise is barely noticeable.

Humans account for only 4% of global CO2 emissions so humans aren't the cause of climate change and actual climate change is less than is being reported. Actual observational data from US and world temperature stations... when excluding stations known to be in unreliable locations (too close to runways, heat vents, asphalt roadways, etc... showing warming of only ONE THIRD the claimed rate.

SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE ABOVE FACTS. Or you can take the time to look them up yourself and become better educated on the topic.

The original climate change movement was misguided, but it at least had good intentions. Years ago, the movement was hijacked by politicians to push their own agenda. Corrupt businessmen jumped in to line their own pockets with not-ready-for-prime-time boondoggles in wind and solar while getting massive government subsidies.

survey ssays wrote:

No

No; plausible, yes, proven, no.

Oh my gosh shut up. We get it already.

yes

You be the judge

Actual Engineer wrote:

You point out the Texas failure. Besides the point that was a once in a 100 year event for the locale the renewable energy production that we have been subsidizing went almost to 0 during the event. Yes, fossil fuel production decreased but far less than renewables. If Texas had more renewable which is what the climate change activists call for they would have been in worse shape. This is a major problem with the climate change grift. They push for wind and solar which are not economical or useful while pushing against nuclear which is the real solution. This has nothing to do with the best solution but because the climate activists are largely invested in solar and wind. This is where the crony capitalists are.

During peak demand ERCOT had taken 45GW of capacity offline. 28GW of this was fossil sources and 17GW was renewables. Maybe if you were an actual actual engineer you'd have a quantitative understanding of what happened here instead of making hilariously stupid claims like "Fossil fuel production decreased but far less than renewables".

Wind turbines also operate fine further north where temperatures are much colder -- because they actually winterize their turbines, something that Texas's providers didn't bother to do because Texas is all about deregulation.

At least you're right that nuclear is really good.

Yes

Now that the US is back in the Paris climate agreement, there is no threat.

fisky wrote:

Humans account for only 4% of global CO2 emissions so humans aren't the cause of climate change and actual climate change is less than is being reported. Actual observational data from US and world temperature stations... when excluding stations known to be in unreliable locations (too close to runways, heat vents, asphalt roadways, etc... showing warming of only ONE THIRD the claimed rate.

SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE ABOVE FACTS. Or you can take the time to look them up yourself and become better educated on the topic.

What is the explanation for global CO2 concentrations spiking precisely in concert with fossil fuel consumption (which basic chemistry shows causes CO2 release)?

The rate of change of CO2 ppm is... high. You can't find parallels in the atmospheric record. At the very least this warrants careful observation and planning.

As for sea level rise -- there is no doubt land ice is receding. This is a very basic calculation. Where do you expect the water to go if not into the ocean?

I am fine with general skepticism but you seem to writing off simple numerical changes with no evidence to the contrary.

You misunderstand the facts. Yes about 60% of the decreased capacity was fossil fuels. But around 88% of the electricity generation in Texas is fossil fuels vs only 12% or so renewable. This may be off a little but is close. So the point is about 40% of the decrease in a generation came from a relatively small portion of the power sources. If the same renewable had been 50% of the grid as opposed to what it actually was the drop in generation would have been much, much more. Grids are not designed with a lot of extra capacity built-in so a 10% drop in supply is a big deal in an emergency situation. Wind and solar are by far the least reliable forms of energy used on any significant scale.