• Punshhh
    2.6k
    I noticed that, they are talking about all the water on the planet boiling off into space.
    I didn’t mean to be that alarmist.

    What I was thinking of by runaway is when the tipping points and feedback loops become triggered and fall like dominoes. Releasing, (or stop removing) greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which dwarfs the amount we have been releasing by burning fossil fuels. Once that point is reached life will become very tumultuous and difficult.

    I don’t think we can know what that means. But what we do know is sea level will rise more rapidly to a maximum of over 90 metres. Ocean ecosystems will collapse, most land ecosystems will be under extreme stress, many will collapse. Growing enough food to feed the population will become impossible. And this will last, or get worse for thousands of years.
  • unenlightened
    8.9k
    This video is out of date. The climate has got worse, the political situation has also got worse. Extinction rebellion has failed. Emissions are still increasing.

  • frank
    14.9k


    During the European dark ages, there were times when monasteries were like fortresses, protecting the last vestiges of civilization Europe had left. If you wanted to see a library, they only existed in the monasteries.

    I'm guessing it will be that way for a while. Who knows what will follow from there. Something really cool probably.
  • Punshhh
    2.6k
    Yes, that sounds about right. I was thinking of three fortresses. North America, Europe and the region of China. The rest of the world would be cut loose.

    Hopefully nuclear bombs won’t be thrown into the mix.
  • frank
    14.9k


    I think Washington and Moscow could possibly be gone in a couple of centuries from nuclear war. We won't be around to see it tho.
  • Punshhh
    2.6k
    Fingers crossed they won’t.
    I see Russia as a failed state now. I expect it would be Washington versus Beijing. In which case I don’t see it happening.
  • frank
    14.9k
    see Russia as a failed state nowPunshhh

    But hasn't it been failing off and on for like 800 years?

    I expect it would be Washington versus Beijing. In which case I don’t see it happening.Punshhh

    That would be cool if they avoided war and just had the occasional cold war.
  • javi2541997
    5.4k
    But hasn't it been failing off and on for like 800 years?frank

    :up:

    Russia is invincible and will never fall out.
  • frank
    14.9k
    Russia is invincible and will never fall out.javi2541997

    I agree. A million years from now the surface of the earth will be covered in a swirling mist that is basically Russia waiting for some aliens to visit so it can morph itself into their form and confuse the hell out of everybody.
  • Banno
    23.7k
    3d413da220bbd6a155462503d298a390?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=338&cropW=600&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=485

    Changes from 1884 to 2022 in global temperatures from cooler than average to hotter.(Supplied: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio)
  • Relativist
    2.3k
    People who are opposed to fossil fuels, are against a cheap, reliable, and powerful source of energy. If you take away fossil fuels it will hurt everyone economically, and essentially decrease everyone's quality of life.Kasperanza
    You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. The best perspective is to consider projections based on the current status quo.
    (See: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49876). Energy use is projected to grow substantially, and most of that growth in demand will be met with non-fossil fuels. Meanwhile, there will continue to be modest growth in the consumption of fossil fuels. Policy change could reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, without eliminating it, by increasing use of renewables. This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. There would be a gradual shift in workforce from the fossil fuel industry to renewable energy jobs, and at no time would there be a sudden change that displaces workers or causes energy cost to jump up.
  • Agree-to-Disagree
    421
    You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight.Relativist

    This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest.Relativist

    Please stop making posts that are reasonable and based on common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:
  • ssu
    8.3k
    Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand?

    What's artificial in that you promote what your country can provide?

    Anyway, with the current prices I'm sure that they have to promote oil products. Having seen over 100 dollar per barrel prices and having now well over 50 dollar prices make alternative energy sources quite competitive (this year Brent prices have been over 70 dollars, now it's 80 dollars).

    weekly-crude-oil-prices.jpg
  • unenlightened
    8.9k
    Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand?ssu

    Probably because they're a bunch of conspiracy theorists a doom merchants. Unless the policy was a secret one that directly contradicted their public commitments on climate or something complicated like that.
  • unenlightened
    8.9k
    A paper for COP OUT 28 that they will not be hearing because the authors cannot be bothered to go.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Miracle.2023.12.07.pdf
  • Benkei
    7.4k
    It won't open for me.
  • unenlightened
    8.9k
    I checked my last two links and they work for me, so I think it must be your end cos I don't have any special access to anything...

    Meh.Mikie

    They must be really worried, to commit to beginning to maybe think about actually doing something at some point, after only 28 summits.
  • Mikie
    6.5k
    They must be really worried, to commit to beginning to maybe think about actually doing something at some point, after only 28 summits.unenlightened

    And the media celebrates and flogs themselves over how mean they were to the fossil fuel executive who led the summit.
  • jorndoe
    3.5k
    Ough :/

    Microplastic pollution rained down on Canada during a hurricane
    — Carolyn Wilke · New Scientist · Dec 7, 2023
    It's raining microplastics: Hurricane Larry dropped plastic particles all over N.L.
    — Jean-Benoit Legault · Toronto Star · Dec 16, 2023
  • frank
    14.9k

    Everybody inhales microplastics. We need to do some research on the effects of that.
  • AmadeusD
    2k
    Then you really don't know what you're talking about, and I suggest taking literally 10 minutes, type in "climate change" in Google, pick one result -- whether from NASA or NOAA or the Royal Academy or MIT or anything you like -- and read about it. Because you're making an utter buffoon of yourself.Mikie

    Not at all, no. I'm fully accepting of anthropocentric climate change (though, i certainly have quibbles around what exactly the implications are - and I don't think its reasonable to suggest that is settled) and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action. I'm open to reasons and discussions, but i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it. I'm not going to accept a 'well, you're a monster' then type response as meaningful.

    I would also suggest perhaps not positing someone is a 'buffoon' for not sharing your moral intuitions :) Particular as I would also note it appears old mate is being fairly glib. The air conditioning comment can't really be taken seriously and I don't read it as intended to be more than a poke of the bear.
  • frank
    14.9k
    and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action.AmadeusD

    It's a moot point. China is presently in the process of building about 50 coal burning power plants, so there really isn't any global action to take. Most interested parties have moved on to considering the challenges of adaptation.
  • AmadeusD
    2k
    Most interested parties have moved on to considering the challenges of adaptation.frank

    That has always seemed a more reasonable approach to me, so fair enough lol.
  • frank
    14.9k
    That has always seemed a more reasonable approach to me, so fair enough lol.AmadeusD

    :up:
  • Mikie
    6.5k
    I'm fully accepting of anthropocentric climate change (though, i certainly have quibbles around what exactly the implications are - and I don't think its reasonable to suggest that is settled) and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action.AmadeusD

    Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention to everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade.

    There’s simply too much information to summarize, and because I’ve done so several times I have little interest in doing so again, especially to silly comments like the one you quoted (as probably just “poking the bear” — why anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know). So what I do is ask that you check out what these sources have you say about the warming planet and what it means for biodiversity and human life.

    We’re seeing the damages already. Depending on how things go — meaning how hot it gets — we face either a very changed but perhaps manageable world to a catastrophe that could make life either a living hell or wipe out human life completely.

    It’s not about intuitions, it’s about facts. Fortunately, the facts are not disputed— nor is that we should do something about it. True, you may not care— fine. That doesn’t change what’s happening, nor what will happen (e.g., biodiversity loss, icecap melt, agricultural disruption, massive coastal flooding, deadly heat waves, famine, droughts, etc.) if it continues without efforts to decrease and eventually negate emissions.

    I’ll repost a prior article of mine that outlines some of the evidence, below.
  • Mikie
    6.5k
    @AmadeusD

    In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:

    EuniceFoote_Illustration_lrg.jpg

    Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

    What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:

    b546cb12-a273-4f7a-90f2-a2eec56fcb98.jpg

    That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

    That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

    So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

    One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

    Turns out there is.

    Over 100 years:

    temp-CO2.png

    And over 800 thousand years:

    graph-co2-temp-nasa.gif?ssl=1

    Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

    The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

    But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

    But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

    So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

    Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

    I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

    In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.