Hard Facts Puncture Fantasies?

IOW, while no one knows for absolute certain what the future holds, there’s very little scientific basis for a catastrophic scenario any more.

True for some time. From 2009:

‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts
www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-m…
Experts at Britain’s top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.

The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.

DB2

They claimed that if natural gas prices went above $6.00/MMBtu level that new nuclear plants would be coming back. Has anyone heard any talk about building more nuclear power plants?

It is well known that nuclear power plants take many years to plan, permit and build. The price of nat gas would need to stay above that $6 level. Similarly, CTL (coal to liquids) conversion projects need oil prices to stay above $120.

DB2

‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public

From 2009:

Olympics 2016 Games could be the last, says Tokyo governor
https://www.reuters.com/article/olympics-tokyo-environment/o…
Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind. Tokyo is bidding to host the 2016 summer Olympics with Chicago, Rio de Janeiro and Madrid also in the running. The International Olympic Committee will elect the winning candidate during its session on Oct. 2 in the Danish capital.

“It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind,” Ishihara told reporters at a Tokyo 2016 press event ahead of the vote.

DB2

Gwyn Morgan: Hard facts puncture anti-fossil fuel fantasies

Every man is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts.

Doubtless we’ll all be using fossil fuel till we die.

And, most likely, our kids kids too.

Methinks solar will be good for powering homes and small businesses, but powering cars, busses and 18 wheelers? Not so much.

Yes, Nat Gas in particular has become the goto answer (often called “Interim” but not sure what will replace it)?

The name of the elephant in that room is nuclear.

PSU,

Yes that is the point, a mandate make the plans…shelve it.

Unless you see ground has been broken? Or anything remotely involving some actions.

You wont because nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity.

It is well known that nuclear power plants take many years to plan, permit and build. The price of nat gas would need to stay above that $6 level.

============================================

It is also well known that prediction of nat gas prices for the long term (20 years) is impossible.

So NO new nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. Wind and solar with energy storage will continue to dominate the new build US electric generation capacity because they are cheap, easy to build, fast to start generating electricity, clean (no toxic emissions and no CO2 emissions) and safe.

Jaak

IOW, while no one knows for absolute certain what the future holds, there’s very little scientific basis for a catastrophic scenario any more.

True for some time. From 2009: ‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts

=========================================================

But the climate experts now say that climate change is happening much faster than they estimated in 2009 and every year thereafter.

Jaak

Carbon neutrality is required by state statute. Their proposals right now are mandated by the same legislation.

PSU

===============================================

But the state does not mandate nuclear power as the solution.

Jaak

The Yglesias piece also has a bunch of more technical discussion about the issue. It also contains this quote from one of the folks who developed the IPCC’s socioeconomic pathways (their best and worst and in-between case models):

So what does this SSP 2 world feel like? It depends, [climate scientist Brian O’Neill, the director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute] told me, on who you are. One thing he wants to make very clear is that all the paths, even the hottest ones, show improvements in human well-being on average. IPCC scientists expect that average life expectancy will continue to rise, that poverty and hunger rates will continue to decline, and that average incomes will go up in every single plausible future, simply because they always have. “There isn’t, you know, like a Mad Max scenario among the SSPs,” O’Neill said. Climate change will ruin individual lives and kill individual people, and it may even drag down rates of improvement in human well-being, but on average, he said, “we’re generally in the climate-change field not talking about futures that are worse than today.”

Albaby

=======================================================================

The above statements depend on the world becoming carbon neutral. People who claim we can not eliminate the 84% fossil fuel consumption are opposed to the above statements, and therefore they are a big problem for world to achieve carbon neutrality.

The UN IPCC report (28 February 2022) has the following statements about the future:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/resources/spm-headline-st…

B. Observed and Projected Impacts and Risks

B.1 Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability. Some development and adaptation efforts have reduced vulnerability. Across sectors and regions the most vulnerable people and systems are observed to be disproportionately affected. The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt (high confidence).

B.2 Vulnerability of ecosystems and people to climate change differs substantially among and within regions (very high confidence), driven by patterns of intersecting socio-economic development, unsustainable ocean and land use, inequity, marginalization, historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, and governance (high confidence). Approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change (high confidence). A high proportion of species is vulnerable to climate change (high confidence). Human and ecosystem vulnerability are interdependent (high confidence). Current unsustainable development patterns are increasing exposure of ecosystems and people to climate hazards (high confidence).

B.3 Global warming, reaching 1.5°C in the near-term, would cause unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans (very high confidence). The level of risk will depend on concurrent near-term trends in vulnerability, exposure, level of socioeconomic development and adaptation (high confidence). Near-term actions that limit global warming to close to 1.5°C would substantially reduce projected losses and damages related to climate change in human systems and ecosystems, compared to higher warming levels, but cannot eliminate them all (very high confidence).

B.4 Beyond 2040 and depending on the level of global warming, climate change will lead to numerous risks to natural and human systems (high confidence). For 127 identified key risks, assessed mid- and long- term impacts are up to multiple times higher than currently observed (high confidence). The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming (very high confidence).

B.5 Climate change impacts and risks are becoming increasingly complex and more difficult to manage. Multiple climate hazards will occur simultaneously, and multiple climatic and non-climatic risks will interact, resulting in compounding overall risk and risks cascading across sectors and regions. Some responses to climate change result in new impacts and risks (high confidence).

B.6 If global warming transiently exceeds 1.5°C in the coming decades or later (overshoot), then many human and natural systems will face additional severe risks, compared to remaining below 1.5°C (high confidence). Depending on the magnitude and duration of overshoot, some impacts will cause release of additional greenhouse gases (medium confidence) and some will be irreversible, even if global warming is reduced (high confidence).

Jaak

From 2009: ‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts

But the climate experts now say that climate change is happening much faster than they estimated in 2009 and every year thereafter.

From ten years later, Mike Hulme in 2019. Mike Hulme is currently in the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge. He was a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and was the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Am I a denier, a human extinction denier?
https://mikehulme.org/am-i-a-denier-a-human-extinction-denie…
I resist the current mood of ‘extinctionism’ which pervades the new public discourse around climate change. Talking about the future in this way is counter-productive. And it does a disservice to development, justice, peace-making and humanitarian projects being undertaken around the world today…

Last September the United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, made the bald claim, “We face a direct existential threat” from climate change. Jem Bendell at the University of Cumbria warns, “There is a growing community of people who conclude we face inevitable human extinction”…

But the rhetoric of extinction and emergency does not adequately describe the situation we find ourselves in…So here are five reasons why I am an extinction denier…

DB2

1 Like

DB2,

Are you saying humanity should be irresponsible instead of responsible for you to profit? That is not how any insurance company operates.

It is well known that nuclear power plants take many years to plan, permit and build. The price of nat gas would need to stay above that $6 level.

It is also well known that prediction of nat gas prices for the long term (20 years) is impossible. So NO new nuclear power plants in the next 20 years.

Unless they are built for other reasons.

At any rate, no expansion of nuclear power would be another nail in the coffin of net-zero by 2050 (not that the goal was realistic anyway).

DB2

Announcement from the Captain:

“I am sorry to report that our record breaking progress has been stopped by an ‘unexpected’ iceberg. Cunard is making arrangements for all passengers to continue their journeys. 1st Class passengers can expect to arrive in New York in ten days, 2nd class in twenty, and steerage in 25, all via appropriate accomodations as we divert Cunard liners and contract with others to arrive here this week. That is all.”

Complex systems like human cultures and economics do complex things, just like unsinkable boats where the designers forgot to account for water flowing up and over the tops of separate unsinkable sections. I hold out hope that we can recover from this stupidity and that our ship with sail on with only minor inconveniences such as mere millions of deaths, but I sure am not counting on it. Instead I see an India that is already ramping up its hatred of Muslims so that desperate Bangladeshi refugees can be slaughtered without too much compunction and oil rich countries from Norway through Qatar and rich countries from USA through Australia can throw them back into the sea or use them as very very cheap labor.

NUTS but reality.

david fb

1 Like

Gwyn Morgan: Hard facts puncture anti-fossil fuel fantasies
The belief that 84% of global energy supplied by oil and gas can be replaced by so-called ‘green energy’ is a fantasy

I could climb to the moon if I could stack up the number of straw men in this article. I guess I am not surprised given the source, which is even less hospitable to progress by anyone other than heroic Howard Roark, and even then with a suspicious eye.

Nobody thinks we will replace “the 84%”, but we might try to get to 50%, even 40% or more, given time and will. Sadly there will be no will among some people, we can only hope a larger segment of the population and politicians does find the will and perhaps the insight to move us forward in a way that is better for all, including the planet.

The piece is too laden with false assumptions and overarching rhetoric to do anybody any good except to provoke useless threads on internet boards, so: mission accomplished.

3 Likes

The piece is too laden with false assumptions and overarching rhetoric to do anybody any good except to provoke useless threads on internet boards, so: mission accomplished.

It is important to base policy and economic decisions in reality.

DB2

‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts

Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous
Asayama et al.
www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4.epdf?shared_access…
The publication of the IPCC Special Report on global warming of 1.5C paved the way for the rise of the political rhetoric of setting a fixed deadline for decisive actions on climate change. However, the dangers of such deadline rhetoric suggest the need for the IPCC to take responsibility for its report and openly challenge the credibility of such a deadline…

This discursive translation of danger may help to increase a sense of urgency, as evidenced by the recent emergence of a youth climate movement. However, it also creates the condition in which a climate emergency is being rashly declared, a move that could lead to politically dangerous consequences…

A more fundamental problem with deadline-ism is that it might incite cynical, cry-wolf responses and undermine the credibility of climate science when an anticipated disaster does not happen. The imagery of deadlines and countdown clocks offers an illusory cliff-edge after which the world heads inevitably to its imminent demise. It promulgates the imaginary of extinction and the collapse of civilization. The impacts of climate change are more likely to be intermittent, slow and gradual.

DB2

3 Likes

‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts

“SHOCKING!!ALARMING!!!” hysteria is all the media does these days. Have you noticed the daily hysteria about monkey pox has been replaced by daily gas price hysteria, along with the daily “severe weather” hysteria?

Steve

But the state does not mandate nuclear power as the solution.

Did I say it did? New nuclear is in two of Duke’s proposals and running their current nuclear is in all their proposals. If you think it can’t be done, go argue with them. They are taking comments on their plans.

PSU

1 Like

‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts

“SHOCKING!!ALARMING!!!” hysteria is all the media does these days. Have you noticed the daily hysteria about monkey pox has been replaced by daily gas price hysteria, along with the daily “severe weather” hysteria?

If it bleeds, it leads.

DB2

1 Like