"California Blackouts: It's Not Just the Heat, It's Also the Anti-Nuclear Power Stupidity": https://reason.com/2020/08/19/calif...at-its-also-the-anti-nuclear-power-stupidity/
setback for small nuclear: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...st-maker-of-small-reactors-encounters-trouble
good interview with Judy Curry: https://judithcurry.com/2021/01/30/...ge-a-different-perspective-with-judith-curry/
Her points are not invalid, but I think she underestimates the ecological impact in her analysis. While the sea level rise may be very slow, changes in ocean salinity can have dramatic impacts not just on the oceans but the climates of entire continents. Nevertheless, while her criticism has validity, and we shouldn't solely be focused on CO2 reduction, we are going to need to address that. She doesn't deny global warming, just says she doesn't agree the models are as certain as others claim (even though the models are ranges and not precise). Even if you think it's only 25% likely we are warming the planet to catastrophic levels, don't you think we should start figuring out ways to reduce co2 in the atmosphere given the consequences?
I think @Os Trigonum is in the camp that think climate change could be good, or at least we shouldn't rule that possibility out.
I don't believe I'm in any "camp," actually, although your description of where I am isn't bad. I am definitely NOT a catastrophist. I think climate change is occurring; I do not believe the consequences of climate change will be catastrophic; I don't think all the consequences of climate change are/will be negative; and I think humans will be able to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change in the future. I also don't think we know everything about climate change, so the notion of "settled science" is a misleading oxymoron. I believe this is already occurring and has been occurring for the past 30-40 years. I think carbon capture and sequestration will continue to progress and will eventually be practical and effective. I believe we need to pursue nuclear power in a BIG way if we are serious about global warming. Given that we're not serious about nuclear power, I conclude that we are not serious about global warming.
You're right about nuclear, we need to rev that up. Unfortunately carbon capture and sequestration are still far away from practical tools. The issue with the analysis you are putting forth, that climate change is a slow process that humans will have time to adapt has one flaw. And that is that ecosystems tend to collapse relatively suddenly once they reach a critical point. Rising sea levels, droughts, fires, polar vortices all may be the least of our concerns. More devastating would be the collapse of ocean ecosystems which are highly sensitive to temperature and salinity. 50% of humanity depends on the oceans for food. Plus while some areas may become farmable with climate change, other areas will suffer from more droughts and become desert like. So food production on land is certainly at risk as well. This is a dangerous game of chicken we are playing.
I use this article in my classes "Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong": https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...bout-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=10a92b9e12d6
We're seeing Houston flooding again. Major flooding is pretty much an annual thing now. While Climate Change isn't solely to blame, poor infrastructure and planning have a lot, the amount of rain we're seeing coming down every year can't be ignored.
Houston is becoming a concrete jungle. There is less and less room for the water to seep into the ground and flow, other than the millions of houses and streets. Add in climate change and it won't get any better.
Well it is the same lack of foresight and planning that contributes to both climate change and poor infrastructure.
It's easy to debunk claims such as the world will end. But again, when 50% of humanity depends on the ocean for food, you aren't going to replace that with corn and wheat especially if it happens over the course of 5-10 years.
12-15" in ~4 hours in Lake Charles and part of Baton Rouge. I don't care how well you plan; you are going to see some major flooding with that amount of water in that span of time. This kind of event was supposed to be a 1 in 500, 1in 1000 occurrence? Well, 2016 was the last time it happens, in SE La. Both of these are from no-name storms, just regular pop-up storms that happen regularly. Hey, maybe it's just bad luck to have two 500/1000 years event in a span of 6 years, but then look at what has been happening in Houston and across the country. These once in a 5 to 10 lifetime historic events are happening every few years. Worse is ignoring this reality (poor infrastructure).
You sum it up well - that's the picture I have of your positions. I agree with you humans will adapt. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do understand risks and in a strict sense of business risk, the "positions" you hold is extreme risky position. If the scale is 0 (low) to 10 (high), I would rate it 9.99999999. ps: I really wanted to say 10.1
