No.1584143[Last 50 Posts]
This thread is dedicated to our accomplishment of having broken the upper limit of sea surface temperature
and the lower limit of antarctic sea ice amount charts this summer, hence ushering our species firmly into the capitalocene. Good job guys! Welcome to the future.
Here's an article about that:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/28/crazy-off-the-charts-records-has-humanity-finally-broken-the-climateAs for the news, there is a drought blocking shipping at the Panama canal, bad wildfires in North America and Greece, persistent heatwaves in eastern Europe and northern Africa, and floods in central and eastern China.
Here's the latest report from the IPCC
<AR6 Synthesis Report Climate Change 2023https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/The website of NASA about climate is great for getting data and visualizing climate change
https://climate.nasa.gov/Last thread: >>1332129
No.1584144
>>1584143Is there any climate activism we can do that isn't completely spectacle and worthless?
No.1584175
>>1584144I'm of the opinion that yes, we can. There is a big airport that didn't get built in France because leftists fought and won against this project. pipelines in the US. mines in India etc. Everything counts and its always a good place to get some organization skills under your belt and educate people on socialism. Dengoid scum will whine about muh forces of production but personally won't let a giant corporation transform a forest near me into a parking.
No.1584215
We have to build a wall around Florida to prevent any of the residents escaping when it sink beneath the ocean.
No.1584232
>>1584143… "All global modeled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot,
and those that limit warming to 2°C (>67%), involve rapid and deep and, in most cases,
immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions in all sectors this 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒆" . - pg 20
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf just skimmed through the report and it looks like we are fucked if we don't reduce emissions immediately, hope I'm blind. chart is from pg 22
No.1584236
All the infrastructure is based around fossil fuels and it will take decades to phase it out, it was already over
No.1584240
>>1584236If we had socialism we could do a war economy and replace 90% of it within 5 years
No.1584243
>>1584144If there was, we wouldn't discuss it here.
No.1584289
>>1584240I have a feeling that's where we're headed. You don't have a war economy when there's no war. At a certain point it will be undeniable to everyone, even the most hardened climate denialists, that we're facing an existential threat as a species and something must be done about it.
No.1584292
>>1584289bro, it's already undeniable to everyone, but everyone in power isn't going to give up any of their own money/influence to do anything about it. there's no solution coming under capitalism
No.1584300
>>1584292It's undeniable, but people aren't dying in sufficient numbers. Food systems have not yet been critically disrupted. When it gets so severe that people start starving in large numbers because of climate change, then the powers will be forced to act. Right now the wealthy countries have the luxury of burying their heads in the sand. Change will happen quite fast once the food system is threatened with collapse. Maybe that day will be too late, but it will also bring everything to a point.
No.1584305
>>1584292Put another way, for a war economy to arise you need to be threatened with immanent death if you do not take action. In war death is not a mere hypothetical prospect. It's act now or die. For many people, especially those who enjoy great power and wealth, these are the best of times. We're not wired to prioritize the distant future over and above the present and immediate future. We will take the most action when we have the least amount of time to safely act.
No.1584320
>>1584240>>1584289I don't want to be that guy saying "the free market will solve it" because it won't, but the growth of renewables is currently exponential because their cost is so low (and their cost is low because states like China and Germany pushed ahead with planning) and respected institutions still have the habit of completely underestimating the rate of growth of clean generation installation which translates into alarming projections. Note that most car makers are already all shifting to EV production because they know any player who doesn't will be left in the dirt very soon.
>>1584300A collapse of the food system is a fantasy at the current juncture. We can shift production from luxury crops, ethanol production and animal feed (more than 50% of current cultivated land) to actual human food before things get dire. Land used to feed animals and raise cattle will progressively be reduced in the 30s when synthetic animal products will have become cheaper than the real thing.
No.1584328
>>1584292Right, thats why conservatives are blaming space lasers for everything why anything to do with climate activism online is filled with raging psychos airing their murder fantasies about climate activists.
You underestimate how ignorant the typical person is, we are incredibly fucking detached from nature. I had two friends that didn't know baobab trees or giant sequoias even existed. Fuck, i had one guy who orbits my friend group who didn't even seem to know what an acorn is.
No.1584333
>>1584328>thats why conservatives are blaming space lasers for everything Can you please go to USA General instead of making this thread about your people too.
No.1584464
>>1584320I'd argue by emphasizing cost you're looking at the wrong thing. The important part about renewables is what I'd call the "substitution point" at which renewable energy generation can output the same amount of power as fossil fuels at a manageable cost. What is the amount of energy generated on renewables compared to fossil fuels? What are we prepared to sacrifice if we can't completely substitute them without breaking even?
Another factor to consider is how climate degradation will throw off current projections based on existing conditions. Loss of arable land due to wildfires, drought, and desertification will make farmers lives much more difficult. The drying up of reservoirs will hurt hydroelectric power. Species loss–specifically the die off of pollinating insects–will damage crop yields.
The complexities of the dynamical systems involved in climate change and its economic impacts are almost humanly unfathomable. I suspect we'll be in for a lot of nasty surprises.
I do have some trust in human ingenuity to dig us out, but certainly not under the capitalism that is burying us.
No.1587160
a global cybernetic planned economy is the only solution to the climate crisis
No.1587164
>>1587142Really hopeful about those feedback loops huh
No.1587177
>>1587142We will overshoot 1.5 but it doesn't mean it's over doomer
No.1588799
https://archive.is/XsmGq>Burning Man 2023: With no estimate of reopening time, Burners party in the rain and mudhttps://archive.is/0CNBk#selection-2078.0-2097.92As Hurricane Idalia caused flooding, some electric vehicles exposed to saltwater caught fire
No.1596698
The world has already ended. I just want some time to mourn it tho.
No.1598777
>>1598774It must be tiring to fight strawmen all day in order to keep dooming, maybe you should take a nap. Most of the oil usage will be displaced onto clean and cheap electricity because EVs will progressively replace ICE cars. Because of the abundance of cheap and clean electricity it will make no sense to use fossil powered industrial processes, when you can do it in a clean way for less capital/resources with electricity or green hydrogen. Down the line even cargo ships and then planes will run on electricity once the battery costs and energy density pass the necessary thresholds.
No.1598938
Honestly bros, I’m worried about the future…will it ever get better?
No.1599223
>>1598938No human society has collapsed controlaby to stop killing their local enviroment. Now, at a global scale… I only hope for pocket communism in some continents.
No.1599238
>>1584143>Here's the latest report from the IPCCLmao this IPCC
>In sum IPCC scientists admit to fraudulent activity, not by outright falsehoods but by distortion, omission and selective attention. Moreover they admit that plenty of money is available for the "easy job" of doing so. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Climategate
>Vincent Richard Gray, who was an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC,[1] called for the agency to be abolished; claiming it was “fundamentally corrupt” and that significant parts of the work of the IPCC (data collection, scientific methods employed) were unsound[2][3] and that the IPCC resisted all efforts to try to discuss or rectify these problems.[4] https://wikispooks.com/wiki/IPCC No.1599245
>>1598938You were born just in time to see humanity punch trough its worse crisis yet, one thing is for sure though, things will get interesting before they get better.
>>1599238The IPCC should be criticized indeed, not because they fabricate claims about climate change like your glowing website claims though, but because they voluntary underestimate it since they represent oil companies and states/parties interested in guarding the status quo.
No.1599248
>>1599245>represent oil companies and states/parties interested in guarding the status quo.The Rockefeller's, the OG oilbarons with trillions in wealth, are funding Just Stop Oil because they want to roll back the very concept of economic development
They want the proles to eat bugs, live in pods, freeze in their homes and accept a steep decline in living standards
No.1599251
>>1599248Nobody care about you living caricature idealist oil guzzlers, go shill for Exxon somewhere else on the internet.
No.1599444
>>1598777>the world can run entirely off intermittent power. dunkelflauten? never heard of it>capitalist governments choosing saving the world over "muh eCoNoMy muh jOOOooooOOObSsSsSs" retardation and oil lobby campaign money>nimbys being fine with any of this and capitalist governments not sucking their cock like they always do>green hydrogen is cheap>battery powered aircraft>battery powered cargo ship>massive battery that isn't an inefficient, energy leaking and fire prone mess>science "predictions" not being a gigantic fucking lie based on magic 8-ball shaking and hopes + dreamsthis is why greens are not taken seriously, at least fucking try to do your research before spouting nonsense
No.1600295
>>1598770>>1598777that you actually believe this is sad.
No.1600307
>>1599444>the world can run entirely off intermittent powerYes, with things called "grid" and "storage"
>capitalist governments choosing saving the worldThey will choose the cheapest options, which is wind and solar, which prices will keep going down overall
>nimbysAre mostly irrelevant
>battery powered aircraftAlready exist, we'll get to 2kWh/kg at some point which will enable electric airliners
>battery powered cargo shipAlready exist, we'll get battery swapping infrastructure and cheap battery at some point which will enable electric Panamax cargoships
>massive battery that isn't an inefficient, energy leaking and fire prone messYeah my 3kg smartphone keeps catching on fire it sucks so much so I post from my lightweight internal combustion laptop
>science "predictions" not being a gigantic fucking lie based onEconomic data and market analysis? Technology progresses, kinda crazy to see malthusian luddites on a communist forum
No.1600764
>>1600307>Yes, with things called "grid" and "storage">They will choose the cheapest options, which is wind and solar, which prices will keep going down overall"Grid" has an issue with energy loss over distance, "storage" has an issue with energy loss over time. Wind and solar are both intermittent and cannot sustain a base load throughout the day. They literally *cannot* replace consistent sources of energy completely, and if governments push for complete replacement with intermittent power sources, they will find out that in most cases (non ocean facing country that is not on the equator) the cost will keep going up exponentially if they want to approximate consistent base load on intermittent power sources.
>nimbys are mostly irrelevantYou say that, and yet in the UK wind power developments keep getting shut down by these fucks constantly through an appeal to "tHeY aRe UuuuUUUglllYYYYYYyyy"
https://www.ft.com/content/1b772b97-30f4-483f-b4b6-4d6ae487a68fnimbys will be a problem until they are fucking gulaged, and they will deserve it just like the kulaks did
>we'll get to 2kWh/kg at some point>we'll get battery swapping infrastructure and cheap battery at some pointok lol. Electric "aircraft" are glorified handgliders, and electric cargo ships suffer from the exact same problem, and it's all related to the battery issue. There is no future in electric transportation without a better battery, and a better battery is not anywhere near the horizon.
>Yeah my 3kg smartphone keeps catching on fire it sucks so much so I post from my lightweight internal combustion laptopYou don't understand do you? It's one thing storing a few watts in a small, low voltage battery, it's another thing altogether when you need to store gigawatts of energy in a high voltage application. The heat losses are an exponential function. The weight of the battery scales faster than the power it can output. There are actually hard physical limits on this shit, and within our current understanding of it all it is *impossible* to make a big and usable battery. I mean shit, a fucking home UPS is a shitbrick and that outputs less than a kW. How many watts does your phone battery output?
<just hook up 1 million phone batteries in series and use that to power a jet lol
>Economic data and market analysis? Technology progresses, kinda crazy to see malthusian luddites on a communist forumToo many video games syndrome. Research is not a progress bar, it is a dice roll and the dice are loaded to snake eyes. Especially on the battery question. It's something else when you see "i fucking love science" liberals on a communist forum.
Here's the thing about your dumb optimism: it doesn't save the world, now does it? It only tells us to "wait and see" and we can't fucking do that. Currently the best option for clean power is nuclear, and this is despite its operating costs, its dangers, and its complexity. Nuclear for base load augmented with solar and wind for load following and peaking is what will save the world. EV won't save the world, cutting down on private transport and embracing public transport will. Cutting down on flights will. Cutting down on goods transport will. This isn't """""malthusianism""""" it is common sense. I'm sick of green bullshit pretending like if we just believe hard enough everything will be all right in the capitalist framework. We either have a world revolution that will take down capital and their psychopathic growth incentives or the world will end, it is that simple.
No.1600882
>>1599444Add on
>Make steel in furnaces from windmills and solar panels, lol>Dig the foundation pits and concrete from windmills and solar panelsGreen energy is completely retarded. None of it makes sense and it only starts to make sense when you realise the green movement was literally started by the eugenics movement
So the dismantling of energy infrastructure is for purposes of harming workers (who will die due to lack of energy) rather than any noble goal of protecting mother earth
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2015/04/520190.html?c=on No.1601244
>>1600764You operate under outdated assumptions, technology progressed since the 1970. Hdvc power lines are a thing, storage is a thing, baseload is becoming not a thing.
https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-duck-in-the-room-the-end-of-baseloadNuclear doesn't have a place in how the grid is changing, because (besides being potentially very dangerous, too long to build, extremely expensive and not accessible to most countries in the world) baseload is becoming an outdated concept since wind and solar need flexible plants (gas for example) until storage is becoming widespread enough. I guess you would agree with Bruno Lemaire who said nuclear power being extremely expensive is ackshually a good thing because it'll stop people from consuming too much power.
Btw, we already have 80 meters 3200t electric cargo ships, aircraft will come later but it's just a matter of time, all serious players are now researching those.
>b-b-b-but we must do degrowth and do this and that to save the worldVery cool but I'm not interested in empty words, internet militantism and how ideas could save the world just now, but in understanding the current trends. Fact is capitalism probably has many, many decades ahead of itself, emissions will soon plunge and even if we keep fucking with the biosphere the hard limit is still the rate of profit, not an implausible doomer scenario of negative feedback loops.
>>1600882Green energy is literally the best way we have to power our space stations and the only way we'll get power to the poorest parts of the world. It's less retarded than you for sure.
No.1601314
>>1601244>baseload is becoming not a thing.The entire premise of that blog post is based on personal demand, i.e. air conditioning, tv watching, whatever the fuck people do at home. It's missing the point that increasingly larger amounts of power are required by around the clock/low demand time use things like: server farms, EV recharge (takes fucking ages, usually left on overnight), refrigeration (heatwaves will increase the need), 24 hr services support (hospitals and the like take a lot of power to run), etc. And then there are also seasonal changes to take into account such as higher amounts of power consumed in the winter when solar produces less power due to thicker cloud coverage.
The blog also admits itself that despite its own claims gas fired base load will STILL be needed to deal with the duck demand, even when he's only taking into account personal power use. It's all wishful thinking. Intermittent power is intermittent power, it cannot run base load and base load will always exist because power usage isn't limited to people watching love island when they come back from work.
The only way base load will become "not a thing" is if intermittent power has so much redundancy built into the system that massive amounts of GW of power go to waste every day, which means that the power cost for renewables will start rising again. Then governments will be tempted to just build hydro power everywhere which will fuck over rivers and the ecosystem.
>we already have 80 meters 3200t electric cargo shipsYou mean this thing?
https://www.ship-technology.com/features/crewless-cargo-the-worlds-first-autonomous-electric-cargo-ship/This is a tugboat my dude, not a container ship. Full electric container ships are not coming any time soon, you do not appreciate the amount of horsepower that is needed to propel those things against water resistance. This isn't a tesla neither in terms of weight nor in terms of power requirements.
>aircraft will come later but it's just a matter of timeAgain, I am trying to impress upon you how this "matter of time" actually quite likely means "not in this century". It doesn't matter how many "big players" are researching this, the kind of battery that we would require to store the kinds of power needed for electric air and water cargo requires a paradigm shift, not tinkering around with engineering. I am up to date on the science of it, it is not even close, we are literally just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks because we do not know how to solve this problem in our current physical framework, and in the mean time it keeps getting hyped up with no results. Waiting for technology won't give results, only meaningful changes with what we have now will.
>emissions will soon plungepls look at image and stop trolling
btw see that small dip in 2021? if I were a malthusian I'd be saying we need another lockdown lmao
No.1601482
>>1601314>intermittent power has so much redundancy built into the systemYes, which will happen in a dozen years
>This is a tugboat my dudeThis is an actually existing electric cargo ship. At some point these will become the norm, the infrastructure for battery swapping needs to be built in ports but at that point electric shipping will be even cheaper than burning heavy fuel.
>the kind of battery that we would require to store the kinds of power needed for electric airWould have a density of 2kWh/kg, we're already mass producing 500Wh/Kg for cars, and the business which is doing that, CATL, is working on bringing it to planes.
>pls look at imageYeah I looked at it, please look at how much renewable power was installed in China last year.
No.1601529
>>1601482>Yes, which will happen in a dozen yearsNo it won't because:
<the power cost for renewables will start rising again. Then governments will be tempted to just build hydro power everywhere which will fuck over rivers and the ecosystem.The nuclear phobia will strike again and ruin the environment in other ways by halting flows of fresh water just to service the base load, which - regardless of what some blogger writes - is not going away.
>This is an actually existing electric cargo ship.This is not a container ship, it's a tugboat. It is slower than a contemporary cargo ship while carrying literally 1/200th of its cargo capacity. You say you are against degrowth and yet using these things means degrowth. No amount of cope about infrastructure will fix this.
>Would have a density of 2kWh/kg, we're already mass producing 500Wh/Kg for cars, and the business which is doing that, CATL, is working on bringing it to planes.Yes its so easy to just literally quadruple the energy density lmao, dude I don't know how else to tell you that you need to lay off the "i fucking love science" website and maybe fucking read some papers about developments to see how silly this copium is? A single airliner needs about 500,000kWh for a transatlantic flight, so a 2kWh/kg battery would weigh 250 TONS and we are not even close to this rating. A 747 freighter model has a capacity of less than half that lmao
It is degrowth or bust with full EV, unironically. There will be no such thing as EV airliners this century, and no amount of hopium will change this.
>please look at how much renewable power was installed in China last year.please look at the increase in coal power usage in China last year
spoiler: its 100 new coal power plants approved last year alone
No.1601975
>>1600471>Why has climate change…fallen out of the public consciousnessIt hasn't
No.1602162
>>1601529>>1602107Don't care I believe in CATL and NASA not wikispook and seething nuclear shills. You will take ze electric plane and you will like it.
I just wish I lived in Spain instead of France so I could use cheap solar electricity instead of dying of cold during winters.
No.1602217
>>1602192The red flag with the special black Buddhist symbol on it atop a little white circle that most of leftist/pol/ seemingly aspires but perfomatively denounces?
They were also massive oil shills you know
No.1602231
>>1602199>Sorry I don't hear you over the sound of the terawatt of solar power being generated. Have you thought to seek a job at the IEA? They want more galaxy brained retards who don't understand exponential curves.When they calculate solar power price they pretend the sun is always shining when in reality solar needs to be backed by another power 1 for 1
They also don't remove the subsidies given to the solar industry. Which is why anywhere that implements Solar and wind means the citizens pay out the arse for energy prices
So in other words if there is a low amount of solar power there needs to be a power station that can be flicked on immediately to accommodate that load.
Take Germany. Even with a 130,000 megawatt capacity of solar energy they can only reach 5000 megawatts at different times in the day
Also given the limited shelf life of solar panels they end up in landfills and are highly toxic.
No.1602248
>>1602231Ah yes Germany, the country that will generate more than 50% of its power by renewables this year. (Also again storage exists).
>Also given the limited shelf life of solar panels they end up in landfills and are highly toxic.lol, yes sure glass is very toxic, this i why you only drink from styrofoam cups full of microplastics I guess
No.1602251
crosslinking veganism for reducing climate change thread: >>1602241
No.1606961
>>1602248Ah yes Germany, the country that will generate more than 50% of its power by renewables this year.
Ah yes. Germany, the country still building coal reactors.
retard. fuck off.
No.1607042
>>1606961>still building coal reactorsFactually wrong
No.1607048
>>1607042Oh, sorry.
They are revitalizing and expanding their existing plants.*
Very different! sorry German anon!
this was sarcasm. you're a dumb cunt still. No.1607059
So, whats wrong with the second holocene climatic optimum?
No.1607071
>>1606961They better buy liquid gas from their burgerland masters (btw LNG loses 7% of its mass as boil-off gas after 60 day of shipping).
>green will defend thisThey better reopen and dig up their shitty brown coal mines, but will not buy evil z-gas from orcs.
>the green will close their eyes on this, or deflectThe same time they better close all nuclear and zombify population with their red scare bs level propaganda.
Imagine considering those porky tools as actual green movement.
No.1607484
>>1607120Wow right you just need to be ok with drinking Nigerien blood to still have a very high carbon intensity.
No.1607495
>>1607437>notices the colors near Cusco and La PazHuh looks like Cockshot was right about humanity needing to move to higher elevations for survivable temperatures because of climate change.
No.1607515
>>1606957>buy a couple beavers>name them A Dam and Beav>tell them that all of the trees and streams are theirs to build dams with, but don't fuck with any forbidden infrastructure because then the humans will hate them and drive beavers to extinctionNothing could possibly go wrong here.
No.1607548
>>1607484keep parroting the psyops comrade. not sure how many nigerians will stick around for +4C
No.1607573
>>1607515I like what you did there
but seriously I don't think we should ship beavers to the entire world
No.1614574
>>1608430In case you haven't noticed we live in a capitalist economic system. All the energy production industries are owned by capitalists. The implication that green energy is less capitalistic than nuclear energy is evidence of your ideological blindness. France built their main fleet of reactors in about 15 years. Germany has had much more time than that to pivot to renewables and they are still operating around 500 gCO2/kWh whereas france is always under 100. You should consider looking into the material facts of these matters rather than deciding your opinion on the basis of how "reddit" something is.
No.1614676
>>1614574it's the same idiot who thinks that there's going to be terawatts of solar power in like 10 years honest.
No.1616031
>>1598774>the metabooolic rift kills us ALL by 2025!!!Okay? It's kinda too big to fix in any program we can articulate for now
No.1616758
>>1599248If climate change wasn't real, why would the bourgeoisie want to lower rates of consumption and slow down economic growth? Haven't they been the sole and biggest proponents of economic growth for hundreds of years now? Don't they rely on constant economic growth for their own profits? What explanation, besides "for the evulz" would these people have for wanting to reduce the consumption of the working class, unless they face an existential risk from climate change? Haven't right wingers been saying that climate change was a hoax from US because it was convenient for socialist goals?
No.1616768
>>1607437the color scheme is kinda whack, although I am going to assume that Brazil isn't freezing over at -20°C.
No.1651571
>>1614574Material facts are that nuclear is not adoptable by the vast majority of the world and that even if it was the time frame wouldn't work, simple as.
No.1651837
>>1614574>There's a single simple solution to this multidimensional ecological catastrophe!The decades long intentional dumbing down of the westernoid populace has been a disaster for online leftist discourse
No.1682563
When I was young, they told me we were working on new technology and it was going to stop the climate issue.
When I was young, I saw polite little PSA's in magazine's telling me not to shower too long.
When I was young, I heard of the hydrogen car.
When I was young, I watched the crocuses grow in the spring.
When I was young, the snow fell on the correct dates.
When I was older, I realized the scope of it all.
When I was older, we were setting up the wind turbines.
When I was older, they were testing out new tech to harvest energy from currents.
When I was older, I saw my first electric car.
When I was older, we got new recycling bins.
When I was older, my neighbor threw his oil-heater out.
When I was older, I learned that cold melt water from the pole was slowing the Golf stream.
When I was older, I saw no crocuses.
When I was older, it snowed a day in May.
Today, I fear for it all.
Today, we are throwing the wind turbines in the trash after their use-life ran out.
Today, I know we don't use solar panels cause it'd make electricity too cheap.
Today, they had posters begging us to sort correctly.
Today, I saw even more electric cars, and I knew they still ruined the climate.
Today, I looked outside, at the snow that came two weeks ago and stayed.
Today, it hit two degrees.
Will there be a tomorrow?
No.1682675
>>1598770Reminder that 100% of the electricity will be generated by renewables before 2080
even if humans are extinct by then. No.1682678
>>1682563>Today, I looked outside, at the snow that came two weeks ago and stayed.Last time my town had snow was
__1836_.
No.1682696
International Posadism with Nutural Characteristic.
No.1682707
Javier Milei, a right wing libertarian who won the Argentine presidential election, calls climate change a socialist lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAdtDxJnvB8&t=4069s No.1683779
>>1682675somewhere in the void Voyagers RTGs still would produce milliwatts
No.1685496
>>1682675>2080Bro try 2040, battery parks are now killing the gas industry which is pushing more investments toward solar which is pushing more investments toward Battery Energy Storage Systems. The fossil fuel ship is sinking fast, we are now in a renewable positive feedback loop and that is added to the fact that their growth was already exponential. With how things are going by the end of the decade most generation will be renewables. CO2 emissions are peaking in 2024 or maybe even this year.
Coal burners, baseload retards and nukeheads are basically as dumb and delusional as flat earthers at this point.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drain-economics-gas-power-plants-2023-11-21/ No.1699458
>>1685496still wont sustain global energy needs and development
No.1699507
>>1584143starting to wonder if north korea is going to be one of the few survivors. The necessary requirements needed to survive this climate disaster is something most nations wont be able to do. Meanwhile, north korea has arguably all the state measures, economic organization and etc to survive since ya know they've been in a economic siege and semi isolated state since the 90s.
No.1699508
>>1699507nk still exists because of help from china
No.1717511
whither winter? warmest december weather ever doesn't bode well for wildfires this summer
No.1717518
>>1685496Aren't we using way too much resources for these renewables though? Nuclear might be more expensive right now but it takes way way fewer rare metals and so on
No.1717627
>>1717511I'm kind of worried what this is going to do to the biosphere.
It's been so warm I've seen animals acting like it's spring. It'll cause hell if there's a sudden polar vortex freeze.
No.1724669
>>1724665good
let the leisure class use ice with frozen 40000 year old bacteria
No.1724675
>>1584223>unevolved formlol good bait
No.1724913
Not sure I can hang out with enviromentalists much longers brehs
>tree tories
>eco-fascists
>green-capitalists
>enviro-libs
I'm getting so so tired…
No.1724915
>>1724913Are they really so bad? Last time I went to an environment meeting people seemed nice and there was plenty of left wing people
No.1724923
>>1724922I mean we already missed the boat to prevent catastrophic climate change yes but we already knew that, we just have to prevent as much damage as we can now
No.1725037
>>1724922The global warming will be extremely limited and was already happening
No.1725047
My new paper demonstrates that realistic emissions scenarios and climate sensitivity values & scenarios of natural climate variability produce more realistic, non-alarming scenarios of 21st century climate.
I would like to thank Judith Curry for inviting me to write a short blog post on my just published paper:
Nicola Scafetta. Impacts and risks of “realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century. Geoscience Frontiers 15(2), 101774, 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101774The paper is open access and, therefore, it is accessible to all.
I believe the work is significant because it addresses the central issue that is of general interest: how much warming can we expect in the 21st century? These are serious challenges that scientists must solve to truly assist policymakers. Is today’s climate alarmism founded on real science, or is it simply an extrapolated view based on flawed arguments?
Answering such a question defines the steps that must be taken to address any expected threats associated with possible future climatic changes. However, the uncertainties are so great that no consensus can be reached. Some argue that we are on the verge of a massive climatic disaster if net-zero emission policies are not imposed quickly, while others argue that nothing will happen. Technically, anyone can present arguments in support of his or her belief because of the large uncertainties surrounding these climate change issues.
I’ve opted to address the issue by highlighting recent research efforts to reduce uncertainties in order to obtain more “realistic” climate estimates for the twenty-first century. This might then be used to better analyze the actual impacts and hazards of climate change, with the hope that people will be able to agree on the best remedies.
I have identified four sources of uncertainties:
Which shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenario for the twenty-first century is most plausible? According to recent scientific literature, it is the SSP2-4.5 scenario, which is a moderate and pragmatic scenario in which CO2 emission rates maintain around present levels until 2050, then reduce but do not reach net-zero by 2100. Unfortunately, most of the climate alarmism is based on unrealistic scenarios like SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0, which result in overestimation of future projected warming and greater alarm.
How sensitive is the climate to CO2 increases? According to recent scientific research, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) should be between 1 and 3 °C. Unfortunately, the IPCC AR6 relied heavily on Global Climate models with ECS ranging between 2.5 and 4 °C (likely range), which overestimates future projected warming.
Can we rely on the warming presented by surface temperature records to calibrate and/or validate which models to use for climate projections? Addressing this point is critical because recent literature has suggested that surface temperature records may be significantly influenced by non-climatic warm biases (e.g. contamination from urban heat islands, among others), and because satellite-based lower troposphere temperature records (e.g. UAH-MSU v6 and NOAA-STAR v5) show a warming rate that is 30% lower than recent surface temperature records (as shown also by the IPCC AR6). The concern is that the models expect that the troposphere will warm faster than the surface, not less. As a result, the warming rate of surface temperature records should be questioned. In this case, all CMIP6 GCMs are running “too hot,” indicating a very low actual value of ECS (1-2 °C), implying that future climate change would be more moderate than projected by the IPCC in all cases.
The fourth question is whether the GCMs accurately reflect natural climate change variability. The issue is significant since a vast body of research indicates that the CMIP6 GCMs are incapable of reproducing natural climate variability because they ignore multiple well-known climatic cycles at all time scales. There is a quasi-millennial climate oscillation with a likely solar origin that characterizes the entire Holocene and is responsible for the well-documented Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, which models are unable to reproduce (as timidly acknowledged by the IPCC AR6 figure 3.2). Other natural oscillations were also detected, such as the quasi-60-year oscillation seen in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation signal, as well as many other oscillations classified as solar/astronomically driven in previous studies. While GCMs suggest that over 100% of the observed warming is manmade, these oscillations could have contributed significantly to the warming recorded in the twentieth century. Introducing cyclical natural variability predicts low ECS values (1-2 °C) and that the GCMs grossly underestimate the solar impact on climate.
Using the information discussed above, “realistic” climate change projections must be created using the SSP2-4.5 and: (1) only models with a low ECS (less than 3°C); (2) rescaling the models to the lower warming rate of the lower troposphere temperature records; and (3) adopting semi-empirical models of natural climate variability. As a result, in all three situations, the projected warming for the twenty-first century is congruent with the IPCC’s projected warming using the net-zero scenario SSP1-2.6. This is clearly demonstrated in the graphical abstract of my paper, which is displayed below:
Image
Graphical Abstract
Because future climate change is expected to be modest enough that any potential related hazards can be addressed efficiently through effective and low-cost adaptation strategies, the 2.0 °C Paris-agreement warming target for the twenty-first century can likely be met even under the feasible and moderate SSP2-4.5 emission scenario without the need for implementing rapid, extremely expensive, and technologically likely impossible net-zero decarbonization policies.
Happy New Year 2024 to all!
https://judithcurry.com/2023/12/29/realistic-global-warming-projections-for-the-21st-century/ No.1725154
>>1725037It's clearly not that limited but ok
No.1725158
>>1725047So should I stay mas or nah?
No.1725406
>>1725037it's only going to get worst from now and it's going to go into catastrophic consequences, it probably already has in the Sahel we just aren't hearing about it
No.1725435
>>1725154>>1725401>>1725406Its the de-dollarization joke, come on folks
No.1727349
>>1727304The internet was a mistake
No.1727686
>>1724922the worst part is it hasn't even begun
No.1727715
>>1727304Our leaders have torched any governmental credibility over the last 20 years, again and again. What do we expect?
No.1727750
>>1727739We will be officially over 1.5c after this el nino cycle according to james hansen, so its kinda grim.
No.1727751
>>1725047can you legit give me the tl;dr?
No.1727869
>>1727750We already are in 1.5C if you use the 1750-1800 baseline, which is the correct one. Scientists are being forced to use the 1980-2000 baseline to mask real climate change.
No.1727873
>>1727869>1750 baselineEugenicists took 1750 as the "baseline" for warming because that was Earths lowest temperature in thousands of years
Of course it was going to get warmer
No.1727877
>>1727873Found a good fact check on this graph and how you are using it
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/edited-graph-obscures-truth-about-global-warming/Deboonked, what is the next big oil propaganda that you are going to pull out?
No.1727884
>>1682714>broken english>in this day and ageThis is not a scientific article
No.1727926
>>1727873It should be the basdeline anyway cause it predates the industrial revolution. It could have gotten even colder without CO2 from human industry.
No.1727931
How to be anti-malthusian
>take conservative propaganda
>replace "liberal" with "eugenicist" and "Malthusian"
and that's it
not even the first time iv'e seen this
No.1735025
>>1727760I HATE PORKIE. I FUCKING HATE PORKIE. I FUCKING DESPISE PORKIE. AHHH
No.1735034
>>1735027why are electoral leftoids so fucking psyopped when it comes to nuclear energy man
No.1735042
>>1735034international environmentalism is still being run by flower children and their ideological decendants
No.1735054
>>1735034>>1735034>psyoppedThe Green Party in Germany glows brighter than a reactor core. Look into what they were pushing in the 70s, it's prominent figures are still around. Who knows what the agenda was in getting them to oppose nuclear energy. Probably trying to make Germany more reliant on the US.
No.1735218
>>1601244> we already have 80 meters 3200t electric cargo ships, aircraft will come later but it's just a matter of time<"Load the ship with today’s best commercial Li-ion batteries (300 Wh/kg) and still it would have to carry about 100,000 metric tons of them to go nonstop from Asia to Europe in 31 days. Those batteries alone would take up about 40 percent of maximum cargo capacity" https://spectrum.ieee.org/electric-container-ships-are-stuck-on-the-horizonWOMP WOMP
>"we must do degrowth and do this and that to save the world" I'm not interested in empty words, internet militantism and how ideas could save the worldYour post is nothing but empty words and idealism. It's like that joke about asking anarchists: "how will you build sewers?". Hey neoliberal technocrats, how will you mine and refine steel using solar farms and wind power? (recycling our limited resources doesn't count since that's the degrowth ideology you shit on for ruining your Star Trek utopian dreams of a marketplace without any contradictions)
>the hard limit is still the rate of profit the hard limit is thermodynamics, like having the energy required to move Commodity X to Marketplace Y. How will you mine and refine steel with solar farms and wind power? How can a truck deliver anything if 40% of their transport is dedicated to batteries that require 12 hours to charge everyday? The only logical answer is "we'll just shift to degrowth economy", but you want to have your cake and eat it too
>>1725047>"alarmism"ok Exxon
>any potential related hazards can be addressed efficiently through effective and low-cost adaptation strategiesYou can tell a neoliberal wrote this because its all 'if we assume everyone is a rational agent in the free market, there's no problems". Buddy but you can't even get reactoids to use LED light bulbs
No.1735223
>>1735218Maybe trucks will just carry 60% of what they do now? Or we can use trains instead? Hell we could even just wire cables above the road and the trucks could use them like RC cars. Degrowth is definitely needed but your other shit is retarded. What is the issue with mining steel with wind power exactly??
No.1735478
>>1735218>the hard limit is thermodynamiHave fun waiting for the thermal death of the universe retard but technology is moving on
No.1740774
>>1735478The technology necessary to lower carbon emissions has existed well over half a century at this point
No.1756353
>>1735218if you put a nuclear reactor in the cargo ship you won't have to refuel it for ages. the real thermodynamic issue is humanity having the capacity to look at a yummy yummy oil field and say "nah i'll use an alternate energy source" instead of gobbling up them both.
No.1756381
>>1756377If you googled this story you'd see a hundred bourg media pieces praising how "quirky" and "innovative" they are for essentially profitting from climate disaster. Capitalism is dystopian
No.1756393
>>1756392except maybe the context of when its happening.
No.1757291
>>1735478never get tired of reading the complete retardation of clueless techbro obsessed liberals like you
No.1757341
>>1756381That's how it goes with any reforms under capitalism. Some bourgeois always ends up profiting in the end.
No.1757356
>>1756353Why won't you gobble up both? Like what, you think that we need to limit our growth or something? Maybe even degrow????
No.1757559
>>1757356Fuck what we really need to do is turn Earth into Venus. Limits are for pussies. Burn everything all the time.
Now, you might say if we limit ourselves now, later we may be able to consume more in the long term. This is pure ideology, if you don't consume as much as possible at any given moment you are a sucker. You are either a fucker or a fuckee and I for one intend to fuck the whole world.
No.1758099
>>1758086We're due for another planetary polar reversal too as it turns out
No.1758168
>>1607120Based nuclear france
No.1758731
>>1758588This is why the official accords countries agree on will keep moving the baseline up to make it seem that the 2 degree goal is acomplished. In a few years they will start using 1990-2000 baseline 😂
No.1758740
Even doomers of the past were downplaying CO2. They thought problems will come with resource depletion, nuclear warfare,… It has always been CO2, specifically sudden changes in its concentration and its effects on climate. Thats the bottleneck. The fossil and geological record proves it. If any industrial activity, of any economic system, keeps pumping out previously trapped CO2 into the atmosphere, the Earth will keep warming exponencially. So we stop it, or we get stopped.
No.1759865
>>1759852From 2 months ago:
China has stopped funding Hinkley Point C amid political tensions, report claims
>The state-owned China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) has stopped making payments to fund nuclear plant Hinkley Point C amid high tensions between the UK and China, a Bloomberg report has claimed.
>The project is currently one-third owned by CGN, with French firm EDF Energy owning a controlling stake in the rest of the project.
>It also paid CGN over £100m to exit the Sizewell C nuclear energy project last year amid continued efforts to reduce Beijing’s involvement in UK infrastructure over security concerns. Despite looking for outside investment for the project to replace CGN, Sizewell C is currently 50/50 co-owned by both EDF and the government.Womp womp. Can't do anything without China.
https://eandt.theiet.org/2023/12/14/china-has-stopped-funding-hinkley-point-c-amid-political-tensions-report-claims No.1759870
>>1758740I’m glad it’s going to happen. Fascists will pay in blood in the end after all
No.1759878
>>1759865When China finally pulls the plug in a decade because they will have all they need with renewables civilian nuclear will be truly dead at last
No.1762192
>>1759865reeee china you cant do this to me
No.1762202
>>1762199
wow these 4 random retards really disproves climate change compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in this field
No.1762209
>>1762202Clauser, the last one won the Nobel prize in physics for proving Einstein wrong
But just like Obama says amirite? Those damn Africans better not have cars or fridges or the "planet will boil over"
No.1762214
>>1762209That doesn't make him a climate physicist now, does it?
No.1762218
>>1762209>winning a Nobel prize means everything you say is rightreal braindead hours
No.1762220
>>1762209Obama won a Nobel prize too. :^)
No.1762223
>>1762221
scientists are experts in all fields equally just like in my hollywood films duh
No.1762225
>>1762224
go back to facebook tbh
No.1762231
>>1762225You're just upset because you've done no investigation to what the Soviets thought of anthropogenic climate change, IPCC setup by Thatcher/Reagan/Brian Mulroney and Helmut Kohl
All bankrolled by the Rockefeller's, Shell and BP for purposes of deindustrialising the West of it's most class conscious workers and fighters for socialism (coal industry) as well as to under-develop the 3rd world for gross Malthusian reasons
This is why you fight, so you don't have to put the glasses on
Get a lesson in climate history here and you'll see it's the same eugenicists and Malthusians
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R14b0ZSSSUM No.1762235
>>1762224
How do all the other Nobel winning scientists that affirm climate change (you know like 99% of them) not outweigh this guy to you
No.1762237
>>1762231>the oil companies are the ones who promoted the conspiracy of climate changeA whole new level of retardation
No.1762238
>>1762235All paid off by ExxxonMobile and SShell
No.1762240
>>1762235Because climate catastrophists are corrupt
Here's where you got your 97 (not 99) percent from
No.1762245
If anything, the corporations want climate change. Once ai and robotic automation hits you get all these excess unemployed people. Gotta kill them all off somehow.
No.1762291
Every good post is always reponded with bait contrarians. Well, that's the price for being an unmoderated thread.
No.1762293
>>1651571
>low/no interest state finance>adopt a well established nuclear reactor thats been in use the last 10 years or so>build the first one so you have the infrastructure>build 10-50 more ahead of scheduleliterally all we have to do to cut most carbon emissions. Less so if we still want renewables.
No.1762301
Climate denialists are the weirdest morons I swear.
Even the most schizo right wingers I know who work on farms accept it as a realoty because it's literally palpable
Only urbanite schizos deny it.
No.1762306
>>1762301>Climate denialNoone denies the climate. It changes all the time.
>Retard anecdotal account about your faggot farmer friend being palpableMeanwhile in reality Russia is harvesting record amounts of grains and rice
https://tass.com/economy/1712883Put the sunglasses on, stop fighting me and read the books I posted and YouTube link if you're too much of a stupid illiterate fuck
No.1762309
>>1762291I wonder why that is
Can we get a conspiracy theory rolling? The ones I've seen so far have been uninspired.
No.1762312
>>1762309you are already a liberal if you are afraid of conspiracy theories.
For starters every single Communist Party is a conspiracy to overthrow the government, smash the state and build socialism
if you think in liberal cucked terms that conspiracy = insane gibberish (despite their being numerous laws you can be convicted and imprisoned for "conspiracy") you are a midwit retard stuck in a liberal box who will probably vote for Biden
No.1762313
>>1762312I will vote for Biden from my shithole country
Try and stop me loser
No.1762384
>>1762306>Meanwhile in reality Russia is harvesting record amounts of grains and riceHuh, I wonder why, must be global sameclimateness. Or maybe it's the climate apocalypse warming the planet in a feedback loop.
No.1762445
>>1762306>climate change denier takes bourgeois state propaganda at face valuesmh
No.1762447
>>1762433People who say this are usually suicidal thinking it'll "cut deep"
So in that hope please rope yourself, noone loves you
No.1762449
>>1762199
>Even the Soviets, when battling the corrupt IPCC
The paper does not say they were battling with "corrupt" sources, just that it was a perspective difference
No.1762451
>>1762199
These two sources contradict themselves, lmao
No.1762457
>>1762449Proof you're illiterate
<Battle lines were now clearly drawn inside the IPCC, then in the process of drafting its first report. It could not afford to offend major governments or its sponsors. Born into the controversy over response strategies, it had already become a target for conflicting pressures. One of its first actions would be to discredit the Soviet view, stated by Professor Izreal [sic] at home, that global warming was a good thing, and reducing Soviet influence in WGI [Working Group I].117
<For Alan Hecht, writing in the foreword to the English-language edition of Izrael’ and Budyko's book Anthropogenic Climate Change (1987), the notion of a possible favourable future climate for parts of the northern hemisphere was grounded on the results of the application of palaeoclimatic analogues outlined in the book.118 Budyko's insistence on the potential beneficial impacts of climate change, primarily through anticipated increased levels of precipitation and the so-called ‘fertilizer effect’ of heightened CO2 levels (enhancing crop growth), clashed with Western climate modellers as well as the emerging international consensus that anthropogenic climate change was an issue to be addressed with growing urgency. The somewhat crude and dogmatic character of Budyko's pronouncements during the late 1980s differed from his more cautious and measured statements in early years, and his views were understandably treated with scepticism by many.119
<The evident marginalisation of the Soviet contingent persisted along overtly scientific lines, framed by the growing dominance of a predictive, law-based modelling approach within Working Group I of the IPCC.120 In particular, doubt was cast over the future climate predictions of the palaeo-analogue approach (pushed strongly by the Soviet representatives), due to uncertainties over the underlying mechanisms and the robustness of datasets, as well as suggestions that past climates would be unable to accurately predict the specificities of a rapidly warming global climate in the near future.121 No.1762466
>>1762457You have not posted anything that shows they were battling with "corrupt" sources. This is a difference in perspective, one (the soviets) was wrong here.
Poor framing
1/10
try again
No.1762676
>>17623061. find tall building
2. go roof
3. walk forwards
4. profit
No.1762691
Alex Epstein is a grifterAnd puts forth lazy
old climate change denial arguments.
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-really No.1762715
>>1762709As much fun as these stories are, I find it pretty unlikely we could ever actually lose our technology at this point. Maybe we will lose some of the infrastructure needed to create it but we'll still have so many books and so on and digital information.
No.1762726
>>1762715>I find it pretty unlikely we could ever actually lose our technology at this point. why not? if we lose the nonrenewable energy sources we use to produce things (including alternative energy sources like solar panels and windmills, which in this current day require nonrenewable resources to make, at least in their supply and distribution chains), then we will eventually lose the technology. Sure some tech will be left over as artifacts. But with excessive use and improper care and no way to reproduce, we will fall back into earlier modes of production. Now it is possible we will explore alternative technologies that rely entirely on renewable resources, or perhaps even engage in breeding programs of livestock and crops and trees in order to increase their usefulness to us, but there is no guarantee that we will ever achieve the power we have today, considering the devastation wrought on the environment will create a bottleneck that makes many species go extinct.
No.1762865
>>1762737It depends though on the location. Modern technology requires infrastructure, urbanization, industry to exist(as you stated before). Wtihout these factors, knowledge may exist but will be difficult to implmenet. Some places might still have these factors, and thus modern civilization can continue to exist…to a degree. But other places will probably devolve into a previous mode of production.
No.1762904
>>1756377umm why would someone buy ice when they can just make it at home
No.1762912
>>1762447I'm not suicidal, I'm homicidal towards fucking cretins like you.
No.1763099
>>1762709Most probably not, because AES are pulling the whole of humanity into space, whether they like it or not.
Maybe sci-fi/fantasy will happen on some isolated O'Neill cylinder commune, but not for the majority.
It would be pretty fun to be honest, communes having their own country sized space habitats.
No.1764351
>>1764334we're fucking cooked
No.1764823
>>1764740
>funded by the bourgeois
<The United States based CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues
<William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition
Glowing brighter than a supernovae
No.1764872
>>1757559disco elysium dialogue energy
No.1764874
>>1764745
Let's see what the paper says
>NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation.
>8 ± 4 degrees Celsius
>Eemian interglacial of 15.000 years
>vs
>Anthropocene global warming in 250 years
Gee I wonder why the last one is being more catastrophic…
No.1764876
>>1764745
Also, that image is wrong. There should be a straight line at the end representing the last 200 years going to at least 2C warmer. They left that out. Now die.
No.1764887
>>1764744
Ipcc is shit and aggressively downplay climate change because they are paid off. Watch paul beckwith.
No.1764891
>>1764718
>you retarded illiterate battycrease
Yardies have found /leftypol/, wut the bludclot!
No.1764913
>>1764891Withe the high vulnerability of Jamaica to climate change and the mess it already wrought you'd expect people living there to be more perceptive about their shorelines being eroded, the longer droughts and the hurricanes getting worse. Not them being brainwashed by glowing US think tanks into burying their heads into the (receding) sand.
No.1769158
So now that the dust has settled, are yall ready to admit that covering the planet's surface in extremely large manmade reservoirs would be the best way to reduce climate change by contributing more water to the water cycle and reflecting more heat off the planet's surface as well as providing more water to forest ecosystems in hotter regions of the world?
No.1769183
>>1769158i support it because it means new lines on map
No.1769254
>>1769158I am ready babe
I am down for whatever
No.1769413
Questions to the hopium brigade:
What percentage of primary energy use is non-hydro non-biomass renewable?
How fast has this share of total primary energy use been increasing on a year to year basis for the past 20 years?
Does primary energy use correlate with higher living standards?
Is it physically possible to increase solar cell and wind turbine efficiency twofold?
What is the EROI of biodiesels?
What is the current production volume of new refined precious metals, rare earths and copper, and how much would production need to be increased to meet increasing non-hydro non-biomass renewable energy to 20 to 100% of the energy mix?
What happened the last few times 'cheap' oil production peaked?
In light of topsoil loss and climate change, how much energy is required per calorie to replace conventional farming with hydro and aquaponics?
If every Indian, African and South American wanted to live like Western Europeans and Anglo Americans, how much would the world's primary energy supply need to be increased by?
No.1769417
>>1769413>Is it physically possible to increase solar cell and wind turbine efficiency twofold?probably not but solar power is only good for living off the grid as an individual and not for powering the whole electric grid as a society. wind turbines are good and we should have more of them despite their noise and destruction of birds. we should do something to compensate to help bird populations out though.
>What percentage of primary energy use is non-hydro non-biomass renewable?idk what this means but hydroelectric power is the future see picrelated
>In light of topsoil loss and climate change, how much energy is required per calorie to replace conventional farming with hydro and aquaponics?none, in fact, it takes less energy to farm via permaculture and other more sustainable farming practices. industrial farming is only done because it is profitable and also probably because of heavy government subsidization of private agribusinesses who have grown too big for their britches.
>If every Indian, African and South American wanted to live like Western Europeans and Anglo Americans, how much would the world's primary energy supply need to be increased by?in the future, americans and europeans will be living less lavish lifestyles after the imperial core has been wrecked by the uprising of the imperial periphery, so the lifestyles of westerners will actually become more like those of the third world than the opposite way around.
the sooner megacorporate agribusiness conglomerates like tyson and bayer go down human society will be in a less precarious position than before. but this requires a focus on rural farming and rural areas that most american communist city-slickers are not interested in engaging with. they're too busy thinking all the food in the freezer at their corner store grows on hooks at the meat-packing plant, not from actual agriculture or harvested by immigrant slave labor.
No.1769516
>>1769158Build desalination plants for public use and pump the brine into salt flats
No.1769596
>>1769516Just turn the salt into usable table salt. We are running out of places to mine that, but we can just get it from the ocean. The reason we mine it instead is that it's
profitable but desalination isn't.
No.1770676
>>1769413Renewable energy capacity is growing 30-50% a year, if you do the math, even with a mean S curve, primary energy use will be mostly clean in 10 to 15 years as coal and gas, (which lose 70% of that energy as heat btw) use recede. People in the south will have massively higher living standards when solar and wind energy adoption become commonplace there for a fraction of the environmental cost. Biodiesels are a scam and we have enough resources, workforce and industrial base to electrify the world. Hydroponics and aquaponics can be powered with clean energy but even then we don't need that with better models of sustainable agriculture, new generation GM crops and cultivated meat soon arriving on the market.
No.1771250
>>1771248I mean the climate is fucked yes, we just have to try survive now and try stop things getting even worse
No.1771261
>>1771256jungle gang will migrate to the garden and take over. trust the plan
No.1771672
>>1771248Not fast enough to reach the new holocene climate optimum and global circulation change, I want to grow peaches in my backyard dammit!
No.1771817
>>1771805Wind is a bit of a meme for engineering reasons but it's still useful. Solar is absolutely useful especially when you put solar panels on the building you're powering. It's good not to put all your eggs in one basket. Diversification of energy sources is good. Nuclear/hydro power for the main grid and solar for local power gives you redundancy and reduces the impact of power outages.
No.1771839
>>1771818Put together a bugout kit for when the giga-hurricanes start coming your way.
No.1771882
>>1771805You'll eventually run out of fissile matter in a few centuries whereas wind and sun will be here for a bit more than a billion years
No.1771889
>>1771882You know closed nuclear fuel cycle and fast reactors (breeders) exists, right?
No.1771898
>>1771805It's too expensive, nobody wants to insure the plants because of the potential trillion dollar catastrophe, can't be built everywhere, weapon proliferation, waste, vulnerable in conflicts etc. Also less popular than wind and solar combined and going down while these are going up.
No.1771901
>>1584144stop the porkies flying. It's that simple. As long as they are allowed to use planes like ubers all eco activism is bullshit and will be seen as such. How to stop them? organize.
No.1772362
>>1771805You can come back with this type of post once the hypothetical plateau in solar's costs and efficiency crops up. Until then, you sound out-of-touch and clueless.
>>1771889Spent nuclear fuel is dangerous to handle and extract the uranium from. Breeder reactors lose the cost-efficiency characteristic of modern regular nuclear which is why they became out-of-fashion.
No.1788698
>>1788696Maybe. It's not like we'll have to worry about it for long.
No.1788725
>>1788719>Nuclear and hydro trend towards centralization, solar and wind trend towards decentralizationLMAO anarchists are completely hopeless arent they
No.1788727
>>1788725Who said anything about anarchists? If you have giga-hurricanes and similar things happening, you want to have redundancies in case something knocks out the power grid. Being able to generate electricity more locally is good.
No.1789339
>>1771805Exponentially over. Also, that baseline is a joke. It should be 1750-1800.
No.1789340
>>1788696Yes. Maybe it slow sown with a La Niña but it will exponentially warm with exponentially more CO2. Thing is that change isn't gradual. That is a mathematical abstraction. It comes in pulses. These pulses will be felt when a giant glacier of Antarctica enters the sea and makes the sea level a meter higher in just a year or less, for example.
No.1789361
>>1788727Nuclear power plants are built to withstand artillery shells and aeroplanes. They are much safer than solar panels that get ripped from their hinges by hurricaine winds. Plus, all those damaged and destroyed solar panels will have to be replaced, producing more and more waste
No.1789369
>>1769158No because that's not how climate change or albedo work fucktard
Once the seas stop absorbing heat no land reservoirs will make a difference, and the seas are so much larger and more influential than all freshwater sources on Earth that nothing humans can create can remotely takeover its role in absorbing the Earth's heat
Increasing precipitation on the Earth and in tropical regions won't solve anything since that's something global warming was already going to do. All you'll do is massively devastate multiple collapsing ecosystems even more. It's genuinely frustrating that all you ever do is post the stupidest shit here. You can't be fucked to read
anything about climate change and global warming before constantly posting stupid shit like this?
No.1789373
>>1789361>>1789361An artillery shell and aerial bombing are a lot different from hurricanes larger than any in known history and who knows what the fuck else
Solar panels are relatively cheap and relatively easy to produce, if you lose a solar panel array it is not as much of a loss as if you have a nuclear power plant meltdown or even just irretrievably shutdown, which is a point all complex machines can be brought to, the loss is not easy to bite down. What's more, there are greater vulnerabilities to this centralized energy infrastructure beyond failure of the nuclear power plant itself, that is, the centralization of power distribution, through what would necessarily be a centrally distributed networked structure, leading to multiple nodes of vulnerability throughout a broader energy infrastructure, spread across a destabilized world beset by never-before-seen natural disasters and the worst versions of ones we've already experienced, it is extremely vulnerable
With solar arrays, you can instead focus on more decentralized networks, with cities and local communities able to primarily rely on their local solar energy array to meet their needs, with connected arrays distributing power between each other rather than being centralized to a single point with many nodes that can be cut off by disasters
No.1789381
>>1789373Ive lived through once in a lifetime hurricanes and the streets were littered with hundreds of thousands of USD worth of solar panels that kid sin the Congo had to work double time to replace. The only electric generation infrastructure still standing was a decommissioned nuclear plant that hasnt been used in decades. Plus, its a significantly more efficient use of land and produce less CO2 to construct than the solar arrays. One small power plant will give electricity to millions and last decades in a consistent and clean manner. Solar arrays only work when the sun shines and require expensive, dirty, and inefficient power banks to last through the night. Decentralization" is a very cute soundbyte but it smacks more of that stupid brand of right wing bullshit of going to live off the land at the edges of society in an epic self reliant manner when humans in society have never been self reliant
No.1789383
>>1789380Ngl the people actively trying to spread anti-intellectualism in the already subhumanly stupid society of the West need to be fucking shot
This sort of shit is why half the Imperial core shithole are sympathetic to the rhetoric of fascist piggers
No.1797793
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45832-9Looks like natural gas isn't required to make nitrogen fertilizer.
No.1797797
>>1797793>The conversion of N2 into HNO and NH2OH by water plasma could offer great profitability and reduction of polluting emissions>could offer great profitability>In terms of energy cost (g kwh–1), our method is currently ca. 3 orders of magnitude less efficient than HB and ca. one to two orders of magnitude less efficient than plasma-based methods for N2 fixation reported earlier>3 orders of magnitude less efficientSo, you gonna burn natural gas to power up plasma reactor?
>no ammonia as productBro, hydroxylamine is not as universal product as ammonia and by itself a whole new bag of concerns, just look at its mutagenic and explosive properties in solutions.
Idk, are we gonna pretend that this process is somewhat more net positive then using already fixated nitrogen by geothermal energy in form of natural gas?
No.1797828
>>1797793how is this going to compete with haber-bosch if it's less efficient? we've had over 100 years to fix HB's engineering issues
>natural gasthe feedstock for HB is nitrogen and hydrogen, the latter of which can be had from electrolysis or syngas. or we can turn the syngas into methane and use existing steam reforming+HB plants as they are
>>1797797>3 orders of magnitude less efficient than HBlolll
No.1808254
>>1808249thank you anon for doing something that I was too lazy to do.
No.1808257
>>1808249All I've been thinking about all day is 1. I'm glad that's not me. 2. This problem is going to get extremely bad with Thai vulnerable on all fronts, there are no good outcomes here, only a hope that such inevitable doom leads to revolution, but I doubt that.
But at least the heat had the good grace to kill the cops first. And being to irresponsible with spending to afford flights at least has a silver lining..
No.1808260
>>1808249Just remember that when alexandria ocasio-cortez finally wins the presidential elections in 2032, the United Social-Democratic States of America (whose military is still going to be responsible for the most emissions in the world under productivist social democracy) will finally be able to tackle climate change according to the idealist cosmopolitans on leftypol who believe that's a practical plan for world socialism.
No.1808262
>>1808260Shay? are you back
No.1808278
>>1808262That depends on whether or not the community improves.
No.1808284
>>1808278it hasnt improved shay, abandon ship
No.1808298
>>1808257what do you predict going to happen, (c)glownonymous
No.1808313
>>1808298Not my wheelhouse it just makes me depressed.
Expert says rising sea levels (double global avg. Bangkok is literally sinking, quite fast) and more large floods, decimating of food industries at land and sea.
Probably all leading to large internal migration, not sure which way migration will go externally; thai has a big illegal immigration issue currently (which cause to much labour issues and slavery) that might get much much worse or might go the other way with mass leaving to better shores, although that will always be the outcome for the current bourgeoisie, lucky and well off who already have half of themselfs in Europe.
I honestly just can't see the thai regime collapsing, the power is very strong and intertwined, reaction won a long time ago and never released its grip.
Having said that tho their are a lot of times in history when similar things have been said,Things have the ability to change quickly… Life
is Change, so nothing is inevitable.
No.1808315
>>1808313thats depressing anon. but dont lose hope. As you say, revolutions dont seem like they happen until they happen. And we do live in a very unstable time.
No.1808607
>>1808313The bourgeoisie are going to have a hard time adapting to the level of chaos that's going to happen. The workers will have every reason to band together and use the opportunity to force a change. It's going to be a terrible century, probably make the 20th century seem like nothing, but it holds the promise of a much greater transformation.
No.1814308
>>1814305BETTER GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE MOTHERFUCKER
IF YOU GOT DIRT ITS TIME TO START DIGGING MOFO IF YOU WANNA FUCKIN EAT
No.1814309
>>1814305We still got winter here. Maybe even stronger than before. These 100f+ 60 days a year is unbearable tho. Summer is now my least favorite season. Fuck summer. It is worse than going out in a blizzard here.
No.1814353
>>1814305picrel
>>1814309People tend to misunderstand "global warming." It's not going to just uniformly get hotter everywhere. Higher global average temperate means more energy in the system. While we have had noticeably warmer weather on average, what we are really going to see is an intensification of weather events. Storms will get stronger, and the extreme temperatures, hot and cold, will get more extreme.
No.1814817
>>1814669According to wikipedia it was the biggest ecological disaster in history so yeah, probably
No.1815584
>>1814353Citation needed, last climatic optimum in holocene was very hot, and at the same time northern hemisphere was free of any glaciation, same goes for Antarctica, life were booming back then.
No.1815589
>>1815584There was never an ice free Arctic during the Holocene, do you even know what the Holocene epoch was or is?
No.1817404
>>1815584I don’t think human life was booming back then.
No.1832561
>>1815584Life that was adapted to a radically different environment you drooling nitwit.
No.1835279
>>1815584The point is that the change to that state is happening too fast.
Unique IPs: 135