Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[Shalcker]

nuclear power alone is not going to curb emissions to a degree that it would matter... not only is there going to need to be a revamp of how we use energy across the board but we'll need to change the global economy along with it. basically capitalism is the biggest blocker to fighting climate change. as well as it's greatest contributor to climate change, this isn't a hot take...

Nuclear power alone with just uranium resources already discovered can satisfy all world energy needs for next few hundred years.

That is before going into breeder reactors and seawater extraction tech - which can extend supply to tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

Which is more then enough for transition to renewables.

But it faces problems even being added into zero-carbon programs in EU.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be a ludicrous defense I would say that events like Chernobyl and the Fukushima disaster played the biggest role in shaping the image of nuclear power. It's downright laughable to say Greenpeace plays such a big role when they have been ignored on pretty much everything.

Chernobyl made all next reactors safer; Fukushima was build before Chernobyl plant.

[Draco-Onis]

Chernobyl made all next reactors safer; Fukushima was build before Chernobyl plant.

What does that have to do with those two events shaping views of nuclear energy to the public?

[Endus]

What does that have to do with those two events shaping views of nuclear energy to the public?

They really don't.

As I pointed out early, Ontario produces like 60% of its power from three nuclear plants. This receives basically zero protest anywhere up here. Our CANDU reactors have eminently good safety measures and there's no public outcry or backlash whatsoever.

Backlash against nuclear is pretty regional, and you have to look to whatever disinformation systems are active in those regions.

[Shalcker]

What does that have to do with those two events shaping views of nuclear energy to the public?

I see it as same level of ignorance as some anti-vaxx takes being repeated verbatim from 19th century.

- - - Updated - - -

yep, I'm just pushing back on this weird narrative that nuclear power by itself is going to see tangible results in the near future. it's going to take years if not decades to get to that point so any and all options need to be considered until we get there.

If we start now we can see quite tangible progress in a decade or less.

No climate-related initiative is going to produce instant results; many operate on even longer horizons.

[Jastall]

The problem with nuclear power is the mining of fissable materials.

And the waste handling, and the oft astronomical costs. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels no doubt, but not an end-all solution.

[Shalcker]

And the waste handling,

Much better and lower footprint then coal waste handling...

and the oft astronomical costs.

Which can be improved due to economies of scale with more plants being built.

Nuclear is better than fossil fuels no doubt, but not an end-all solution.

It can be. It's a shame it likely will not.

[Endus]

And the waste handling, and the oft astronomical costs. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels no doubt, but not an end-all solution.

The waste management for nuclear isn't neglible, but it's borderline negligible. All the waste from every nuclear reactor in the world's operation over its entire lifetime, if collected together in one place, wouldn't fill a football field.

It's dangerous stuff if mishandled, but it's not that difficult to build lined concrete bunkers to bury it in. Compared to the issues caused by fossil fuel emissions, it's peanuts.

[Cynep]

Jesus fucking Christ.

Those "low-lying coastal areas" include most coastal cities.

Wrong. Those "low-lying coastal areas" include most city beaches, but also importantly river deltas, and a minority of the cities are indeed in those deltas. But to list a few coastal cities/towns off the top of my head, San Francisco, Stockholm, Dover, Santa Barbara, even NYC and Los Angeles won't be affected noticeably by 1-2 meters.

You also conveniently didn't address the fact that 1/3 of Netherlands is underwater, but people there know how to build dikes, destroying your doomsday beliefs.

But to show the audience just how much you're in the wrong, I'll requote the same words describing the worst-case scenario, which you quoted and replied to:

from IPCC report: "Compared to 1850–1900, global surface temperature averaged over 2081–2100 is very likely to increase by 3.3°C to 5.7°C under the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5)". Also, "Relative to 1995-2014, the likely global mean sea level rise by 2100 is 0.63-1.01 m under the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5)". So, the extreme case is <...> some amount of migration. If you live on the beach, your great-grandchildren will live in a different house. <...> some additional migration will happen over a century,

Natural processes will occur, humans will react by migration and engineering. Have you noticed that you're denying the IPCC report BTW? You're outing yourself as a blind con-critical follower.


To address Wilkinson et al., 2007b from AR5, some additional migration will happen by mid-century, and better air-conditioning tech will be widely available in hot climates by mid-century. That paper is no longer cited in AR6, hmm I wonder why... :|

You literally have no clue what you're talking about, and are zealously protecting that willful ignorance.

The situation is literally reverse, I'm representing facts and science while you're acting like a religious zealot. Even though we do agree on nuclear power at least...

[Endus]

Wrong. Those "low-lying coastal areas" include most city beaches, but also importantly river deltas, and a minority of the cities are indeed in those deltas. But to list a few coastal cities/towns off the top of my head, San Francisco, Stockholm, Dover, Santa Barbara, even NYC and Los Angeles won't be affected noticeably by 1-2 meters.

You also conveniently didn't address the fact that 1/3 of Netherlands is underwater, but people there know how to build dikes, destroying your doomsday beliefs.

"Below sea level" and "underwater" aren't synonyms. Nor is my position "doomsday" in any respect.

Also, regarding sea level rise, you are again ignoring that storm surges, tides, and waves exist. It isn't as simple as the mean global sea level.

But to show the audience just how much you're in the wrong, I'll requote the same words describing the worst-case scenario, which you quoted and replied to:

Natural processes will occur, humans will react by migration and engineering. Have you noticed that you're denying the IPCC report BTW? You're outing yourself as a blind con-critical follower.

To be clear, most of what you put in the quote was your misinterpretation.

The AR6 WG1 report deals with the physical science, not the impacts on human civilization; that's the WG2 report due out this coming February.

I'll just put the entire section B-1 from the Summary for Policymakers from the AR5 WG2 in a quotebox here;

B-1. Key Risks across Sectors and Regions

Key risks are potentially severe impacts relevant to Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which refers to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Risks are considered key due to high hazard or high vulnerability of societies and systems exposed, or both. Identification of key risks was based on expert judgment using the following specific criteria: large magnitude, high probability, or irreversibility of impacts; timing of impacts; persistent vulnerability or exposure contributing to risks; or limited potential to reduce risks through adaptation or mitigation. Key risks are integrated into five complementary and overarching reasons for concern (RFCs) in Assessment Box SPM.1.

The key risks that follow, all of which are identified with high confidence, span sectors and regions. Each of these key risks contributes to one or more RFCs.

i) Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small
islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea level rise.
ii) Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.
iii) Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services.
iv) Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.
v) Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.
vi) Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.
vii) Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.
viii) Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.


Many key risks constitute particular challenges for the least developed countries and vulnerable communities, given their limited ability to cope.

I'll note pre-emptively that the WG1 analyses from the AR5 were significantly less alarming than what the AR6 determined, and we can expect the AR6 WG2 to step these RFCs up accordingly. If the AR6 WG2 was out, I'd cite from that, but until it's out, the AR5 will have to do.

I repeat; you don't know what you're talking about, and you're lying about basically everything. Willfully.

To address Wilkinson et al., 2007b from AR5, some additional migration will happen by mid-century, and better air-conditioning tech will be widely available in hot climates by mid-century. That paper is no longer cited in AR6, hmm I wonder why... :|

Because the AR6 was put together years later and there was more up-to-date information by then. A paper from 2007 isn't exactly current, y'know.

Edit: Also that the citation you're referencing, regarding this paper specifically; https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...40673607612525
Was from the AR5 WG2 report, which deals with human impacts and adaptation, whereas you're raising a false question about why a paper about human health and injustice with regards to global energy wasn't included in the AR6 WG1 report, which is strictly about the physical science basis of AGCC itself. Which is also a dishonest framing.

And stop pushing conspiracy garbage. What's happening here is that you literally don't understand what you're reading. Not that there's some grand conspiracy to hide some "truth".

The situation is literally reverse, I'm representing facts and science while you're acting like a religious zealot. Even though we do agree on nuclear power at least...

I mean, you're literally lying about the science. Openly. Which is why you're cherry-picking fractions of sentences out of context and hoping nobody checks the source material.

[Cynep]

I'm not making a single statement of belief in any of these posts. Stop making up fake shit.

As for where it's exceeding human adaptation measures; the number of disaster events exacerbated by global warming is long and well-known. There are myriad examples in the AR6 document I've already linked way earlier. Not my fault that you don't know what we're talking about.



You're lying with that second statement.

So no; that's not your point. In this analogy, you are the Goebbels figure. You've also cited precisely jack shit to back up anything you've said.



Hell, I'll just link right back to the AR6. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#FullReport

Now you don't even have to check earlier posts.

You're looking for section 9.5, specifically.



You're not even addressing the point.

I'll freely admit my source was a talk I went to at Adaptation Canada 2016, and I can't find the paper that was presented (the symposium site's no longer up). But if you're stating that tree species don't have climate needs, you don't know what you're talking about.



Your completely unsupported ass-pull of an idea?

There's nothing to argue against. You're just obstinately wrong about the facts, and refuse to educate yourself, preferring to push climate denier propaganda instead.

I've already backed myself up plenty.

You've disappointed me. I came here, demonstrated first that I actually do know and understand the topic, then presented my unpopular thought in hopes that I'll learn something new, maybe someone will show me my mistake. Instead I get zero facts, zero arguments from you, and a ton of angry personal attacks. At least you reminded me about IPCC's new report but that's it. You're not nearly as knowledgeable as I thought. Obstinately repeating the same one, already proven wrong, personal attack - blind cultist calling everyone outside his cult ignorant deniers, happened countless times over millennia. This too shall pass.

On the trees - you claimed most tree species will die in Toronto, I said "strange" then listed a whole bunch of trees doing well in worse climate, wondering what quaint trees do they have over there. You got nothing. My entire point, if we call it that, was "hmm, strange trees if even true".

- - - Updated - - -

I've literally cited multiple extensive reports describing exactly this.

You being too lazy to bother reading them/too willfully misinformed to understand them/too biased to accept what they state is not my problem to deal with. All I'm responsible for is underlining your malfeasance to the audience. I'm not responsible for convincing you of anything.

And you dug your hole even deeper. You see, history of climate is adjacent to disciplines I have a lifetime-long interest and knowledge in, and by now an impartial reader can tell that I know climate stuff better than you do. Around 2012 or so I had fun reading what probably was IPCC AR4, this AR6 draft looks similar. So a clear loss for you, I know and understand the facts, and you don't obviously.

Chapter 9.5 was dealing with how much glacier retreat will contribute to sea level rise, as expected it doesn't claim that countries would do better half-covered by glaciers, or that landlocked countries would be negatively impacted by rising oceans. Science, duh. IPCC is proving my words, not yours. You'd know that if you bothered to educate yourself about facts and science instead of making ignorant claims

For another nail in your cult's coffin, I downloaded the full report draft, 242 megabytes 3949 pages and searched for "catastroph" to catch both "e" and "ic". 18 occurrences, most of them are in names of cited papers, for good reason - SHOCK sells, boring names don't. I checked all occurrences so you don't have to, and listed them all to demonstrate the difference between science and neo-religion.

1. Page 1-35, Section 1.2.3.4 Media coverage of climate change

Other studies show that people react differently to climate change news when it is framed as a catastrophe (Hine et al., 2015), as associated with local identities (Sapiains et al., 2016), or as a social justice issue (Howell, 2013).

2. Page 1-153, paper name "Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences."
3. Page 1-162, paper name "Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change."
4a. Page 4-145, paper name "Well below 2°C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes."
4b. Page 4-145, paper name "Well below 2°C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes." -- yes, duplicated for some reason, the draft is a work in progress, so okay.
5. Page 5-145, paper name "Are methane emissions from mangrove stems a cryptic carbon loss pathway? Insights from a catastrophic forest mortality."
6. Page 8-112, Section 8.6.2.1 Amazon deforestation and drying

Deforestation in the Amazon also raises the probability of catastrophic fires (Brando et al., 2014).

7. Page 8-113, Section 8.6.2.2 Greening of the Sahara and the Sahel

These observations are consistent with theoretical studies suggesting that spatial heterogeneity and diversity in ecosystems can mitigate the probability of catastrophic change (Van Nes and Scheffer, 2005; Bathiany et al., 2013).

8. Page 8-142, paper name "Substantial contribution of anthropogenic air pollution to catastrophic floods in Southwest China."
9. Page 8-186, paper name "Implications of spatial heterogeneity for catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems."
10. Page 9-72, Section 9.4.2.4 Ice sheet instabilities

Observations from Greenland show that steep cliffs commonly evolve into short floating extensions, rather than collapsing catastrophically (Joughin et al., 2020).

11. Page 10-164, paper name "Environmental catastrophes, climate change, and attribution."
12. Page 11-106, Section 11.8.1 Overview

Many major weather- and climate-related catastrophes are inherently of a compound nature (Zscheischler et al., 2018).

13. Page 11-251, paper name "A numerical study of three catastrophic precipitating events over southern France. II: Mesoscale triggering and stationarity factors."
14. Page 12-60, Section 12.4.4.2 Wet and dry

Record, catastrophic, unprecedented, and once-in-a-century flooding events have also been reported in recent decades in the tributaries of the Amazon river or along its mainstream (Sena et al., 2012; Espinoza et al., 2013; Marengo et al., 2013; Filizola et al., 2014), in Argentinean rural and urban areas (Barros et al., 2015), in the lower reaches of the Atrato, Cauca and Magdalena rivers in Colombia (Hoyos et al., 2013; Ávila et al., 2019), in basins whose mainstreams flow through important metropolitan areas such as Concepción, Chile (Rojas et al., 2017), and even in one of Earth's driest regions, the Atacama Desert (Wilcox et al., 2016).

15. Page 12-154, paper name "An overview of recent large catastrophic landslides in northern British Columbia, Canada."
16. Page 12-157, paper name "A shift from drought to extreme rainfall drives a stable landslide to catastrophic failure."
17. Page 12-181, paper name "Assessing vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the fisheries sector in Dominica: long-term climate change and catastrophic hurricanes."

So what do we have here.
Quote 1 mentions in a neutral tone the Goebbels-style propaganda that doomsday cults are prone to. "people react differently when it is framed as a catastrophe", indeed.
Quote 6, OK, Brazil needs to get their act together.
Quote 7, diversity reduces catastrophic consequences.
Quote 10, Greenland ice is not "collapsing catastrophically".
Quote 12, catastrophes are often of compound nature.
Quote 14, catastrophic events are indeed happening, as they always were.

These are all of 6 times IPCC authors mention catastrophes over their almost 4000 pages long report. Word "emergency" occurs in 3 paper names and only once in the text, in that same Goebbels-related Section 1.2.3.4 "Also, some media outlets have recently adopted and promoted terms and phrases stronger than the more neutral ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, including ‘climate crisis’, ‘global heating’, and ‘climate emergency’ (Zeldin-O’Neill, 2019)." -- let's call this quote 1a.

So yeah Endus, IPCC confirms my thesis and not yours, from facts and science viewpoint there's no mention of emergency, and catastrophic events are mentioned a few times neutrally, as a natural phenomenon to be studied and to be prepared for. However, some other "particular individuals" are portraying ACC in a very different light, as acknowledged by IPCC in quotes 1 and 1a.

Sensational press and doomsday cultists are doing more harm than good with their lies and exaggerations, someone already said it in this thread before me. I'm just underlining your malfeasance to the audience

- - - Updated - - -

"Below sea level" and "underwater" aren't synonyms. Nor is my position "doomsday" in any respect.

Also, regarding sea level rise, you are again ignoring that storm surges, tides, and waves exist. It isn't as simple as the mean global sea level.

Excellent. 1/3 of Netherlands is "Below sea level", and in 100 years, some other places will be too. And I'm not ignoring anything, and neither are the Dutch engineers which is more important. I've heard New Orleans engineers failed some years ago, but not the Dutch. See my point? Work to be done. Earth is not dying.

I repeat; you don't know what you're talking about, and you're lying about basically everything. Willfully.
<..>
I mean, you're literally lying about the science. Openly. Which is why you're cherry-picking fractions of sentences out of context and hoping nobody checks the source material.

This is comedy gold, as they say. I'm quoting IPCC, numbers, whole sentences, and you're saying I'm lying? Literal quotes from IPCC are lying? It's you who is a science denier


Can't comment on the link you provided, it's paywalled. But yeah we'll see what's in WG2. Doesn't change my idea about that - migration and air-conditioning tech will remove excess deaths.

[Endus]

You've disappointed me. I came here, demonstrated first that I actually do know and understand the topic, then presented my unpopular thought in hopes that I'll learn something new, maybe someone will show me my mistake. Instead I get zero facts, zero arguments from you, and a ton of angry personal attacks.

I'm not "angry".

Just have zero patience for lying con artists like yourself who have nothing to back up their assertions, and are doing everything they can to push disinformation on this issue.

Doesn't take anger to recognize a liar.

On the trees - you claimed most tree species will die in Toronto, I said "strange" then listed a whole bunch of trees doing well in worse climate, wondering what quaint trees do they have over there. You got nothing. My entire point, if we call it that, was "hmm, strange trees if even true".

I couldn't pull up the exact paper, since it was at a symposium I attended five years ago, but the IPCC clearly supports my point on this, which you're ignoring.

And you dug your hole even deeper. You see, history of climate is adjacent to disciplines I have a lifetime-long interest and knowledge in, and by now an impartial reader can tell that I know climate stuff better than you do.

Oh noes, a life-long interest.

I've been working and presenting and publishing in this field for years.

Chapter 9.5 was dealing with how much glacier retreat will contribute to sea level rise, as expected it doesn't claim that countries would do better half-covered by glaciers, or that landlocked countries would be negatively impacted by rising oceans. Science, duh. IPCC is proving my words, not yours. You'd know that if you bothered to educate yourself about facts and science instead of making ignorant claims

This is you attacking straw men. I never stated anything about countries being "half-covered by glaciers", or claiming that land-locked countries would be directly impacted by sea level rise.

For another nail in your cult's coffin, I downloaded the full report draft, 242 megabytes 3949 pages

Is that supposed to be a brag? You're bragging that you . . . bothering to make a basic minimum effort?

and searched for "catastroph" to catch both "e" and "ic". 18 occurrences, most of them are in names of cited papers, for good reason - SHOCK sells, boring names don't. I checked all occurrences so you don't have to, and listed them all to demonstrate the difference between science and neo-religion.

<snip>

These are all of 6 times IPCC authors mention catastrophes over their almost 4000 pages long report. Word "emergency" occurs in 3 paper names and only once in the text, in that same Goebbels-related Section 1.2.3.4 "Also, some media outlets have recently adopted and promoted terms and phrases stronger than the more neutral ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, including ‘climate crisis’, ‘global heating’, and ‘climate emergency’ (Zeldin-O’Neill, 2019)." -- let's call this quote 1a.

I really don't know what kind of "gotcha" you think this is, but I never claimed I was directly quoting the IPCC when I used the word "catastrophe".

However, many of their conclusions fit the bill, whether they use the word itself or not. You spent a lot of effort for no reason, thinking that a semantic "gotcha" that ignores the point would convince anyone of anything?

Also, again, the WG1 report specifically deals with the physical science basis. Not impacts on human health or infrastructure. That's covered in the upcoming WG2, as it was in prior editions. So you're trying to claim a dunk on a goal that the AR6 WG1 doesn't even have.

So yeah Endus, IPCC confirms my thesis and not yours, from facts and science viewpoint there's no mention of emergency, and catastrophic events are mentioned a few times neutrally, as a natural phenomenon to be studied and to be prepared for. However, some other "particular individuals" are portraying ACC in a very different light, as acknowledged by IPCC in quotes 1 and 1a.

Sensational press and doomsday cultists are doing more harm than good with their lies and exaggerations, someone already said it in this thread before me. I'm just underlining your malfeasance to the audience

All you're doing is presenting that you're a climate change denier who's going to misrepresent the very sources I'm citing and falsely claim they support you.

You're a liar and a cheat. And you can't back up your claims with reputable sources, which is why you're trying these lame-ass "gotchas" on precise word use and ignoring the actual information in the reports. You don't want to talk about the actual science, you just want to try and play word games.

Excellent. 1/3 of Netherlands is "Below sea level", and in 100 years, some other places will be too. And I'm not ignoring anything, and neither are the Dutch engineers which is more important. I've heard New Orleans engineers failed some years ago, but not the Dutch. See my point? Work to be done. Earth is not dying.

Who here said the "Earth is dying"?

I know it's convenient to make up straw men rather than deal with someone's argument honestly, but it just makes you dishonest.

This is comedy gold, as they say. I'm quoting IPCC, numbers, whole sentences, and you're saying I'm lying? Literal quotes from IPCC are lying? It's you who is a science denier

You're quoting them out of context. "Whole sentences"? You're cutting them out of paragraphs, which are cut out of chapters, which are set in even greater context. "Whole sentences" is not enough for proper context.

You're lying about what the IPCC's conclusions were. Straight up. You're hoping that cutting sentences out and lying about what they mean in the greater context will be a replacement for an argument, or citing sentences solely to try and catch me in a semantic word game over a single word I used which was never a quote from the IPCC in the first place, that either of those will amount to a meaningful argument.

They won't.

They're just lies. and distractions.

Can't comment on the link you provided, it's paywalled.

It's Wilkinson et al. 2007b (to use the IPCC's reference, obviously you wouldn't actually call it that outside the IPCC's own reference list, since the "b" is only there to distinguish it from another Wilkinson paper published the same year). You cited this article. You are the one who brought it up and wanted to talk about it.

And now you're admitting you haven't read it and don't know what it says.

Beautiful.

[Jastall]

The waste management for nuclear isn't neglible, but it's borderline negligible. All the waste from every nuclear reactor in the world's operation over its entire lifetime, if collected together in one place, wouldn't fill a football field.

It's dangerous stuff if mishandled, but it's not that difficult to build lined concrete bunkers to bury it in. Compared to the issues caused by fossil fuel emissions, it's peanuts.

No doubt, I'm not saying it's a huge obstacle. The costs are, you can't always afford the costs of the materials, plants, and the well-paid staff who work there. Nuclear is a good solution, or part thereof, for developed countries but for developing ones, it's another challenge altogether.

There's also always a "not in my backyard!" element to nuclear plants. Not everywhere and not necessarily strong, but there are more negative connotations associated with them than even with the most polluting, smoke-belching coal plants, sadly.

[Endus]

No doubt, I'm not saying it's a huge obstacle. The costs are, you can't always afford the costs of the materials, plants, and the well-paid staff who work there. Nuclear is a good solution, or part thereof, for developed countries but for developing ones, it's another challenge altogether.

There's also always a "not in my backyard!" element to nuclear plants. Not everywhere and not necessarily strong, but there are more negative connotations associated with them than even with the most polluting, smoke-belching coal plants, sadly.

Yeah, price-wise, it's definitely out of reach currently (not to mention politically, in terms of fearmongering about nukes) for developing countries. That's for construction and implementation and operation, though, not so much waste disposal (which, comparatively, isn't actually that hard; dig a big, deep hole, seal it, bury it, donezo).

Can't stand NIMBY dickery, though.

[Shalcker]

No doubt, I'm not saying it's a huge obstacle. The costs are, you can't always afford the costs of the materials, plants, and the well-paid staff who work there. Nuclear is a good solution, or part thereof, for developed countries but for developing ones, it's another challenge altogether.

There are options even for developing countries - like RosAtom's project in Egypt (with technical support for entire cycle, from building to fueling to training to waste disposal).

There's also always a "not in my backyard!" element to nuclear plants. Not everywhere and not necessarily strong, but there are more negative connotations associated with them than even with the most polluting, smoke-belching coal plants, sadly.

Eventually you could have enough floating nuclear power plants too (at least for coastal areas).

[Cynep]

I'm not "angry".

Just have zero patience for lying con artists like yourself (1) who have nothing to back up their assertions, and are doing everything they can to push disinformation on this issue.

Doesn't take anger to recognize a liar.


I couldn't pull up the exact paper, since it was at a symposium I attended five years ago, but the IPCC clearly supports my point on this(2), which you're ignoring.



Oh noes, a life-long interest. (3)

I've been working and presenting and publishing in this field for years.



This is you attacking straw men. (4) I never stated anything about countries being "half-covered by glaciers", or claiming that land-locked countries would be directly impacted by sea level rise.



Is that supposed to be a brag? (5) You're bragging that you . . . bothering to make a basic minimum effort?


I really don't know what kind of "gotcha" you think this is, but I never claimed I was directly quoting the IPCC when I used the word "catastrophe".

However, many of their conclusions fit the bill, whether they use the word itself or not. You spent a lot of effort for no reason,(5a) thinking that a semantic "gotcha" that ignores the point would convince anyone of anything?

Also, again, the WG1 report specifically deals with the physical science basis. Not impacts on human health or infrastructure. That's covered in the upcoming WG2, as it was in prior editions. So you're trying to claim a dunk on a goal that the AR6 WG1 doesn't even have.



All you're doing is presenting that you're a climate change denier who's going to misrepresent the very sources I'm citing and falsely claim they support you.

You're a liar and a cheat.(6) And you can't back up your claims with reputable sources, (6a)which is why you're trying these lame-ass "gotchas" on precise word use and ignoring the actual information in the reports. You don't want to talk about the actual science, you just want to try and play word games.



Who here said the "Earth is dying"?

I know it's convenient to make up straw men(7) rather than deal with someone's argument (7a)honestly, but it just makes you dishonest.



You're quoting them out of context. "Whole sentences"? (8) You're cutting them out of paragraphs, which are cut out of chapters, which are set in even greater context. "Whole sentences" is not enough for proper context.

You're lying about what the IPCC's conclusions were.(8a) Straight up. You're hoping that cutting sentences out and lying about what they mean in the greater context will be a replacement for an argument, or citing sentences solely to try and catch me in a semantic word game(8b) over a single word I used which was never a quote from the IPCC in the first place, that either of those will amount to a meaningful argument.

They won't.

They're just lies. and distractions.



It's Wilkinson et al. 2007b (to use the IPCC's reference, obviously you wouldn't actually call it that outside the IPCC's own reference list, since the "b" is only there to distinguish it from another Wilkinson paper published the same year). You cited this article. You are the one who brought it up and wanted to talk about it.

And now you're admitting you haven't read it and don't know what it says.(9)

Beautiful.

1. Personal attacks mean my argument is correct.
2. Nope. You're lying. IPCC doesn't claim that most of tree species in Toronto will die. You made a false claim.
3. I mentioned my interest to hint that you've underestimated my competence. You cannot point where my error is, because I know the subject better, your personal attacks illustrate your impotence. If you were working in this field, why are you failing to formulate an argument and show my mistake? I came here asking for that, and you can't.
4. Your claim was "all companies will be negatively affected", which is false, for many countries positives outweigh negatives. No strawmen, just false doomsaying claims from you. I brought up glacier retreat preemptively, to state that it's not a negative beyond sea level rise, thus not "all".
5. This is how much work they put in without claiming it's an emergency even once, and without presenting "catastrophic events" non-neutrally in the whole 6 times they even used the word.
5a. See above. An immense work full of numbers and facts, but no fearmongering. All doomsaying comes from cultists, not from IPCC.
6. Personal attacks mean my argument is correct.
6a. IPCC AR6 is backing up my claims. Scroll up.
7. I'll put it in simple words: sea level rise is manageable, not a catastrophe. Fact proving this: Netherlands built dikes.
7a. Wrong. I do have an argument. You don't have an argument, only personal namecaling.
8. Nice goalpost moving. You lied that I don't quote whole sentences, I do when relevant. Now you'll want me to quote a whole paragraph? Where will you run then?
8a. NO U. IPCC's conclusions were "such and such events have happened, and such and such processes are expected to happen over such and such periods of time, with such and such variances and confidence intervals provided such and such conditions". Specific numbers are in the document, I quoted some of them when relevant. You, on the other hand, are lying and misrepresenting what scientists said.
8b. IDGAF about your word games. I came straightforwardly with a thesis: some people are misrepresenting ACC through usage of words like "emergency" and "catastrophe", and IPCC AR6, actual climate science, is backing up my claim. I partially hoped someone would come and show me my mistake, but you failed to do that, instead admitting defeat nearly instantly via personal attacks.
9. Are there 2 different Enduses or what? The other Endus posted a quote and attributed it to "Wilkinson et al.", I commented on that quote (I know what the quote says) and now this one Endus claims I brought it up! Talk to the other Endus, yo.

[Santti]

1. Personal attacks mean my argument is correct.

Hey, Mr. TonePolice!

If you actually believed that, then why are you still arguing?

[Cynep]

Hey, Mr. TonePolice!

If you actually believed that, then why are you still arguing?

Partially inertia, and mostly hope that someone more competent shows up and shoots my idea down (and not my person). I'm not afraid to be wrong, I know much less about medicine than climate and still posted a few ideas in Covid thread, they were mostly destroyed but I gained knowledge in the process.

[Endus]

1. Personal attacks mean my argument is correct.

Not even if it were an ad hominem, which my comment wasn't. This is just empty tone policing.

2. Nope. You're lying. IPCC doesn't claim that most of tree species in Toronto will die. You made a false claim.

I never claimed or suggested my source for that was from the IPCC. So that's a direct lie.

However, section 2.3.4.3.2 and 2.3.4.3.3 of the AR6 both support my points about the species shifting as biomes change, do you've got a second lie in there too.

3. I mentioned my interest to hint that you've underestimated my competence. You cannot point where my error is, because I know the subject better, your personal attacks illustrate your impotence. If you were working in this field, why are you failing to formulate an argument and show my mistake? I came here asking for that, and you can't.

I'm pointing to specific things you get wrong. See above response to your #2, which is by no means unique among my responses.

4. Your claim was "all companies will be negatively affected", which is false, for many countries positives outweigh negatives. No strawmen, just false doomsaying claims from you. I brought up glacier retreat preemptively, to state that it's not a negative beyond sea level rise, thus not "all".

I said "countries", not "companies".
And you remain wrong on this point, and have provided no evidence to support it, whereas I've provided reams to contradict it.

Try citing, like, literally any evidence to back anything you say up. Because you aren't. The only time you've made any effort to do so was on semantic wordplay, not relevant science.

5a. See above. An immense work full of numbers and facts, but no fearmongering. All doomsaying comes from cultists, not from IPCC.

This is literally just tone policing, again. You don't have a counter-argument on the facts, so you tone police.

Also, hilariously, you're using a personal attack, here. And you know what that means, according to you, right?

6. Personal attacks mean [your] argument is correct.

Well gosh, I don't think logic works that way, but you do. So I guess your use of personal attacks is a concession.

7. I'll put it in simple words: sea level rise is manageable, not a catastrophe. Fact proving this: Netherlands built dikes.

Which were only feasible due to specific geography that's fairly unique to the Netherlands, and which took centuries to establish to their current state of development.

No serious individual is saying SLR isn't a problem because the Netherlands exist.

8. Nice goalpost moving. You lied that I don't quote whole sentences, I do when relevant. Now you'll want me to quote a whole paragraph? Where will you run then?

You quote things out of context, to mischaracterize what they actually mean, in that context. That's dishonesty.

No goalpost-moving at all.

8a. NO U. IPCC's conclusions were "such and such events have happened, and such and such processes are expected to happen over such and such periods of time, with such and such variances and confidence intervals provided such and such conditions". Specific numbers are in the document, I quoted some of them when relevant. You, on the other hand, are lying and misrepresenting what scientists said.

And yet, you can't provide even a single example. Because you know you can't

8b. IDGAF about your word games. I came straightforwardly with a thesis: some people are misrepresenting ACC through usage of words like "emergency" and "catastrophe", and IPCC AR6, actual climate science, is backing up my claim. I partially hoped someone would come and show me my mistake, but you failed to do that, instead admitting defeat nearly instantly via personal attacks.

The AR6 is not backing you up. Using those words is not "misrepresentation"; they don't need to be used themselves in the AR6 to be valid, because words have meanings and we don't need a scientist to use a word before it's valid.

9. Are there 2 different Enduses or what? The other Endus posted a quote and attributed it to "Wilkinson et al.", I commented on that quote (I know what the quote says) and now this one Endus claims I brought it up! Talk to the other Endus, yo.

I cited the AR6, which cited Wilkinson et al. You chose to cite the original source directly, without understanding what it even was, or what it said.

Get back to me when you can find any direct reference in the AR6 that says AGCC is eminently manageable and not a threat. That's your claim, and it's completely without backing.

[Elegiac]

1. Personal attacks mean my argument is correct.

Tone policing is an admission you have no argument.

[Cynep]

Tone policing is an admission you have no argument.

This is new. So, now ad hominem attacks are considered valid arguments?

Anyway since you just joined, I'll state my point again. My argument is the following:

1. IPCC in their work lists many climate-related events and processes, past and projected (with risks justifiably receiving more attention than positive events), in neutral language, avoiding words like "emergency", "crisis" and "catastrophe" almost completely. People who use such terms in connection to ACC are not scientists and are not affiliated with IPCC.
2. The above is a verifiable factual statement of truth, and the only opinion word there is "justifiably", the rest are strict facts. Now, my opinion is that media and doomsday cultists are harming the efforts to counteract ACC with their exaggerated claims that are inevitably shown false once in a while, reducing trust in real scientists. Sabotage or stupidity? You decide.
3. Because of the above I, as someone who understands and agrees with IPCC, suggest that people using exaggerated doomsayer language in climate discussion should be called out as science deniers (they do misrepresent what IPCC is saying after all), and either intentional fraudsters or blind cult followers. This will help in the long run.

- - - Updated - - -

Not even if it were an ad hominem, which my comment wasn't. This is just empty tone policing.

Fine. Does this mean I'm allowed to repeat every time that you're placing your neo-religious beliefs above facts and science, which they contradict?

I'll reply to the rest later, since you don't really make any point there, meanwhile try to address my thesis in my reply to Elegiac right above. Talking about me does nothing, people can read my posts just as well, and see for themselves that your personal accusations are false.