Did 2021 deal a fatal blow to climate-change denial?

[Alligatorob]

I personally feel we should consider nuclear power again. Yes, it's scary. But we now have the knowledge and experience to do it more safely. And maybe someday we will finally figure out how to use nuclear fusion. There is also unlimited energy beneath our feet if we could get to it.

I agree, nuclear is not without problems and risks, but they seem to me to be less than those associated with other forms of energy we use. We have just grown accustomed to the problems of fossil fuels and hydroelectric so they don't appear as scary. I don't think nuclear is worse, just different.

Nuclear power will not however stop global warming, maybe just slow it a bit.

 

[Devi]

Not to be nit-picky but ....... The original problem was nature .... the earthquake / Tsunami . Not the nuclear plant. Had the Tsunami not happened .... Fukushima would still be working properly.

True enough. But the real problem was where they built the reactors ... in a location where the ocean would rush in if there was a tsunami, and there was every chance of an earthquake (both of which did happen).

Even to this day, (recalling from memory), the cores are still melting down, and all along they've had to pour water to cool them, which left them with too much water, and they've had to release radioactive water into the ocean.

My old link for Fukushima info has turned to pay-only, so I found this article from January 1, 2021:
Japan: Radiation Levels at Fukushima Plant ‘Worse’ than Previously Thought

 

[rgp]

True enough. But the real problem was where they built the reactors ... in a location where the ocean would rush in if there was a tsunami, and there was every chance of an earthquake (both of which did happen).

Even to this day, (recalling from memory), the cores are still melting down, and all along they've had to pour water to cool them, which left them with too much water, and they've had to release radioactive water into the ocean.

My old link for Fukushima info has turned to pay-only, so I found this article from January 1, 2021:
Japan: Radiation Levels at Fukushima Plant ‘Worse’ than Previously Thought

"True enough. But the real problem was where they built the reactors ... in a location where the ocean would rush in if there was a tsunami, and there was every chance of an earthquake (both of which did happen)."

True as well but ....... that still has nothing to do with the type of energy plant that it was. It was just placed in the wrong place.

The plant is exceptionally dangerous if certain guides / safety measures are not met. But the plant is / may be fine if those guidelines are followed..........jmo

 

[spectratg]

The current epoch, the Holocene, is the 12,000 years of stable climate since the last ice age during which all human civilization developed. But the striking acceleration since the mid-20th century of carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise, the global mass extinction of species, and the transformation of land by deforestation and development mark the end of that slice of geological time, the experts argue. The Earth is so profoundly changed that the Holocene must give way to the Anthropocene.

The negative impacts of climate change are mounting much faster than scientists predicted less than a decade ago, according to the latest report from a United Nations climate panel. Many impacts are unavoidable and will hit the world’s most vulnerable populations hardest, it warns — but collective action from governments to both curb greenhouse-gas emissions and prepare communities to live with global warming could yet avert the worst outcomes.

“The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal,” says Maarten van Aalst, a climate scientist who heads the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre in Enschede, the Netherlands, and is a co-author of the report. “Any further delay in global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all.”

Between 3.3 billion and 3.6 billion people — more than 40% of the world’s population — live in places and in situations that are “highly vulnerable to climate change”, the report estimates. Some are already experiencing the effects of climate change, which vary by region and are driven by factors such as geography, how that region is governed and its socio-economic status. The report also references for the first time “historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism” that contribute to many regions’ vulnerability to climate change.

The current epoch, the Holocene, is the 12,000 years of stable climate since the last ice age during which all human civilization developed. But the striking acceleration since the mid-20th century of carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise, the global mass extinction of species, and the transformation of land by deforestation and development mark the end of that slice of geological time, the experts argue. The Earth is so profoundly changed that the Holocene must give way to the Anthropocene.

 

[Alligatorob]

Did 2021 deal a fatal blow to climate-change denial?

Based on a quick read though of this thread, probably not.

collective action from governments to both curb greenhouse-gas emissions and prepare communities to live with global warming could yet avert the worst outcomes

Yep, that'll happen just after "collective action from governments" gets Putin to withdraw from Ukraine with an apology

 

[Don M.]

The Earth is so profoundly changed that the Holocene must give way to the Anthropocene.

Anyone who has followed the news on Climate Change has to admit that it IS occurring....and at an increasing pace. However, getting governments and people to agree to take the necessary actions to halt, or even slow it down, is probably wishful thinking. We would have to cease using fossil fuels NOW, and prohibit deforestation, etc., to make any real effect. No way could we go all electric anytime in the next few decades,

Temperatures will continue to rise, oceans will flood more coastal areas, and storms will become more severe. A few years ago, the scientists predicted the end of this century....now Mid-Century is more likely.

IMO, it's a tossup between Climate Change and Overpopulation as to which will thin out the human population...probably a combination of both....and not much past 2050.

 

[Grampa Don]

@Don M -- I fear you are right. It's especially troubling for those of us with Grandchildren.

 

[Nathan]

The earth is ever changing. But, the major changes usually take thousands of years. The current change is hundreds of times faster.

Fact: Glaciers and sea ice are disappearing rapidly.
Fact: The oceans are getting warmer.
Fact: The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing drastically.
Fact: CO2 is a green house gas.
Fact: Most of this additional CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels.

All of these have been measured, and the numbers are there if you want to search for them. Do you think maybe there's a reason to start worrying a little?

Yes, the methodical tracking done over decades by climatologists worldwide point to rapid change in climate due to growing use of fossil fuels. The big lie tactic long used by the tobacco industry has been used by those trying to protect their petrol-chemical investments. The day of reckoning is drawing nearer...

 

[Don M.]

@Don M -- I fear you are right. It's especially troubling for those of us with Grandchildren.

We've got 4 Great Grandkids, and I fear that by the time they reach their 40's and 50's, the world will be an absolute mess. The time when Any Proposed solutions might have a positive effect is rapidly waning.

How long will it take to replace hundreds of millions of fossil fueled vehicles to be replaced with electric vehicles??? How long will it take to find ways to generate the billions of KWH's of electricity needed to power these vehicles, and replace all the gas and oil home heating systems, And replace all the coal and natural gas power plants??

The transition away from fossil fuels is going to cost trillions of dollars, and take decades to accomplish....that is Decades we Don't have.

The Only solution I've heard of that makes any sense is a transition to Hydrogen power....via using solar power to separate water into it's hydrogen/oxygen components which would might create a bit of steamy fog during the morning/evening rush hours, as its primary "side effects".....again taking decades and trillions of dollars to accomplish.

And then, there is Overpopulation. By mid century, there will be around 9 billion people. Automation and robotics is making human labor less relevant with every passing year. By mid century, 1/3rd of the population may be living on "government subsidies". How long before society will be divided between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots"??

With every passing year, I become more pessimistic about what the future will bring. Had I known 60 years ago what I know now, I would have considered celibacy, so as to avoid bringing others into this mess.

 

[Alligatorob]

The Only solution I've heard of that makes any sense is a transition to Hydrogen power....via using solar power to separate water into it's hydrogen/oxygen components which would might create a bit of steamy fog during the morning/evening rush hours, as its primary "side effects".....again taking decades and trillions of dollars to accomplish.

There in lies part of the problem. I think nuclear is more likely. The truth is there is little agreement and no certainties. Except maybe that we have already had major impacts that are just being felt.

 

[Don M.]

There in lies part of the problem. I think nuclear is more likely. The truth is there is little agreement and no certainties. Except maybe that we have already had major impacts that are just being felt.

Actually, the "long term" solution would probably be "Nuclear Fusion" to generate virtually unlimited electricity with little or no pollution. There have been huge strides in that research in recent years....but, again, even it it became possible and practical, it would take decades to implement.
I'm afraid we....especially our offspring...are faced with major problems in the not too distant future, and little or nothing can be done to avoid what is coming.

 

[Devi]

There in lies part of the problem. I think nuclear is more likely. The truth is there is little agreement and no certainties. Except maybe that we have already had major impacts that are just being felt.

You may be right, but then I think of Fukushima in Japan, where the reactor meltdowns continue (and they have nowhere any more to store the water used to help with the reactor meltdowns but simply to release them into the ocean).

 

[Murrmurr]

Actually, the "long term" solution would probably be "Nuclear Fusion" to generate virtually unlimited electricity with little or no pollution. There have been huge strides in that research in recent years....but, again, even it it became possible and practical, it would take decades to implement.
I'm afraid we....especially our offspring...are faced with major problems in the not too distant future, and little or nothing can be done to avoid what is coming.

You may be right, but then I think of Fukushima in Japan, where the reactor meltdowns continue (and they have nowhere any more to store the water used to help with the reactor meltdowns but simply to release them into the ocean).

Researchers are experimenting with ways to sort of reconstitute and recycle a significant percentage of the rc water, and even better, ways to cool the core without water. They've been working on this for quite a while, though.

I'm guessing they aren't getting as much funding as they need or I think we'd have safe, cheap nuclear power by now. Like maybe *somebody's* taking the lion's share of the funding or causing too much bureaucratic red-tape or something.

 

[Grampa Don]

Steam engines killed a lot of people when they were a new thing. We learn from our errors. There are new reactor designs that are much safer. Yes, waste is a problem, but it is not insurmountable. But, with public opinion being what it is, I don't see it happening.

There is a saying about nuclear fusion power plants, " They are always 30 years away."

 

[ElCastor]

Science changes often, just ask a neuroscientist or a psychologist, or a medical doctor, etc.
Climate change has been happening at many times during history. and that has been proven.

California is currently in one of many almost routine droughts. Thanks largely to tree rings and our ancient coastal redwoods we can trace the drought history back a thousand years. 10 - 20 year droughts have been plentiful. Starting in the year 850 we had one of 240 years. Are current changes in climate traceable to the work of humanity? Maybe. On the other hand we appear to be about due for another ice age. Perhaps we are saving ourselves from a true calamity? (-8

"Is global warming preventing the next ice age?"
https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/is-global-warming-preventing-the-next-ice-age/

 

[Judycat]

The Earth will look like Mars someday. Until then, it is adapt to survive. I feel sad for the animals.

 

[spectratg]

The Earth will look like Mars someday. Until then, it is adapt to survive. I feel sad for the animals.

Actually more like Venus!

 

[fuzzybuddy]

Science does not change. What is a fact is a fact. What changes is our understanding. The concept that humans are definitely contributing to the atmospheric conditions with the use of fossil fuels is undeniable. What exactly those changes to our environment will do are still unknown. But there is no denying that they are occurring at an increasing rate. And what we know from history is that civilizations don't do well with climate change. The Egyptians, who built the pyramids, when the rains stopped, and famine came, some ate their children. It's only prudent to maintain our climate as it is.