[Steve_American]

LOL wut?

The additional heating will result from about 6 tipping points being tipped.

The nuclear reactors will not be properly maintained in the chaos of societies breaking down, so they melt down.

.

[Unthinking Majority]

The additional heating will result from about 6 tipping points being tipped.

The nuclear reactors will not be properly maintained in the chaos of societies breaking down, so they melt down.

.

They could just shut them down.

Also, global warming is very slow. Right now it's about 0.3 degrees per decade. This won't likely cause instant mass panic and societal collapse.

[Pants-of-dog]

They could just shut them down.

Also, global warming is very slow. Right now it's about .3 degrees per decade. This won't likely cause instant mass panic and societal collapse.

Yes and no.

Some climate changes will be slow, but things like sea level rise can change abruptly. If a few large icebergs come off Antarctica or Greenland because of melting, they could raise sea levels quite quickly and then flood coastal areas.

[Unthinking Majority]

Yes and no.

Some climate changes will be slow, but things like sea level rise can change abruptly. If a few large icebergs come off Antarctica or Greenland because of melting, they could raise sea levels quite quickly and then flood coastal areas.

Yes I agree floods can be abrupt. I would think (hope) nuclear plants would take potential sea rise into consideration. I'm not a climate change denier I'm just not an alarmist, I'm not worried about nuclear meltdowns due to societal collapse, it's a ridiculous argument.

[Wels]

-5° degree Celsius, and we have an Ice Age.
The permafrost in Siberian tundra will also release methane (which is 25 times more harmfull then CO2)...
[...]

When "the "permafrost" in Siberian tundra will also release methane" (read: thaws.. and it already does. Nothing 'perma' here). Apart from all politics this will be the main problem. And it will have its impact on humanity and all living things, with Russia coming first. Next will be the methane thawing frozen under the gulf of Mexico.
Once the warming has started it is not possible to stop it, neither by ridiculous human goals or promises nor by anything else.
How can individuals not having a clue about physics be allowed to govern countries

[Robert Urbanek]

extreme weather, from floods to wildfires, is increasingly hammering ports, highways, and factories worldwide, and experts warn these climate-induced disruptions will only get worse.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-change-is-disrupting-the-global-supply-chain

Which means that portion of inflation caused by shortages is not going away and prices will keep rising for anything not locally produced.

[Steve_American]

#1 They could just shut them down.

#2 Also, global warming is very slow. Right now it's about 0.3 degrees per decade. This won't likely cause instant mass panic and societal collapse.

#! --- You make it sound like this is as simple as turning off the lights. It isn't that simple. I'm quite sure that we need to remove the fuel rods and put them somewhere where they are safe and being cooled. Just where do you think that is? And, who is going to do it in a chaotic situation?

#2 --- You are assuming that the temp increase is linear at a near constant rate. We *know* that there are about 6 tipping points that will make it very non-linear. IMHO, the Methane one has already been tipped and it will keep speeding up the release of more methane. The Blue Arctic Ocean one is on the verge of tipping. Once it tips, the rate of temp increase will jump up quite a bit. The change from the current white Arctic Ocean in May to a blue ocean in May is profound. Each square meter of the white ice reflects 90% of the sun's energy, until it melts during each summer; but the blue ocean sq. meters absorb IIRC over 80% of the sun's energy. As of now, it takes time each summer for the vast area of the white ice to melt. Soon after the last bit of ice melts in Sept. of some year, the entire ocean will not have much or any ice in the spring, and this will cause a jump in the rate of temp increase (according to the complex climate models).

Those are just 2 of the 6 know tipping points. The effects of the other 4 and any unknown tipping points must be added to those.

.

[Unthinking Majority]

#! --- You make it sound like this is as simple as turning off the lights. It isn't that simple. I'm quite sure that we need to remove the fuel rods and put them somewhere where they are safe and being cooled. Just where do you think that is? And, who is going to do it in a chaotic situation?

#2 --- You are assuming that the temp increase is linear at a near constant rate. We *know* that there are about 6 tipping points that will make it very non-linear. IMHO, the Methane one has already been tipped and it will keep speeding up the release of more methane. The Blue Arctic Ocean one is on the verge of tipping. Once it tips, the rate of temp increase will jump up quite a bit. The change from the current white Arctic Ocean in May to a blue ocean in May is profound. Each square meter of the white ice reflects 90% of the sun's energy, until it melts during each summer; but the blue ocean sq. meters absorb IIRC over 80% of the sun's energy. As of now, it takes time each summer for the vast area of the white ice to melt. Soon after the last bit of ice melts in Sept. of some year, the entire ocean will not have much or any ice in the spring, and this will cause a jump in the rate of temp increase (according to the complex climate models).

Those are just 2 of the 6 know tipping points. The effects of the other 4 and any unknown tipping points must be added to those.

.

I predict nuclear plant technicians will not run away screaming in panic due to complete societal collapse due to climate change.

[Steve_American]

I predict nuclear plant technicians will not run away screaming in panic due to complete societal collapse due to climate change.

I didn't say that they would do that.

I suggested that it is harder than turning off the lights. The core of the reactor must be constantly cooled or the rods must be removed. If they are removed, then what are those techs going to do with them? Will doing that be possible in the chaos? Will some fools stop that process because they "need" the gasoline more, for example?

.

.

[Unthinking Majority]

I didn't say that they would do that.

I suggested that it is harder than turning off the lights. The core of the reactor must be constantly cooled or the rods must be removed. If they are removed, then what are those techs going to do with them? Will doing that be possible in the chaos? Will some fools stop that process because they "need" the gasoline more, for example?

.

.

This is alarmism based on zero evidence.

[Steve_American]

This is alarmism based on zero evidence.

Your compliancy is also based on zero evidence.

We'll have to leave it to the Lurkers to decide who is more likely right.

.

[Unthinking Majority]

Your compliancy is also based on zero evidence.

We'll have to leave it to the Lurkers to decide who is more likely right.

.

The only thing that gets to decide who is right is the evidence, for which your claim has very little, and is akin to fearmongering. Let's treat this like science as it should be, not speculation. Claims without adequate evidence should be rejected. At best your claim is one of a great many possible outcomes.

This line of thinking is similar to your bold claims and predictions regarding MMT, also based on little evidence and a lot of faith. People making bold claims without evidence are dangerous because some might actually believe them. Enter: people not vaxxing their children due to fears of autism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes I agree floods can be abrupt. I would think (hope) nuclear plants would take potential sea rise into consideration. I'm not a climate change denier I'm just not an alarmist, I'm not worried about nuclear meltdowns due to societal collapse, it's a ridiculous argument.

I think Fukushima taught us that nuclear power plants can be rendered non-functional with floods, but it will still not result in loss of life.

Mind you, Fukushima is on the Ring of Fire, so it may be more strongly constructed than most.

[Steve_American]

I predict nuclear plant technicians will not run away screaming in panic due to complete societal collapse due to climate change.

Lurkers, please notice that UM has dropped his disagreement with my point #2 above, which is that the many tipping points will be tipped (the IPCC reports don't deal with them in detail at all, IIRC they do assert that we need to keep the temp increase from going much above 1.5 deg. C above Pre-Ind=levels to keep them from tipping) if the temp increase reaches 4 deg. C above Pre-lnd-levels. He just focused on my claims about nuclear reactors melting down. Again I claim that the IPCC reports just don't deal with any tipping points at all in detail because, they say, there is not enough proven about them to be specific, but that they do exist and will be tipped if the temp gets hot enough for each separate one to be tipped.
. . Maybe he will go back and reply to my point #2 now.
.

[Unthinking Majority]

I think Fukushima taught us that nuclear power plants can be rendered non-functional with floods, but it will still not result in loss of life.

Mind you, Fukushima is on the Ring of Fire, so it may be more strongly constructed than most.

I think we need to be strategic where we build nuclear plants. I would think building them in Japan or in low-lying areas where flooding could occur is a very bad idea.

[Unthinking Majority]

Lurkers, please notice that UM has dropped his disagreement with my point #2 above, which is that the many tipping points will be tipped (the IPCC reports don't deal with them in detail at all, IIRC they do assert that we need to keep the temp increase from going much above 1.5 deg. C above Pre-Ind=levels to keep them from tipping) if the temp increase reaches 4 deg. C above Pre-lnd-levels. He just focused on my claims about nuclear reactors melting down. Again I claim that the IPCC reports just don't deal with any tipping points at all in detail because, they say, there is not enough proven about them to be specific, but that they do exist and will be tipped if the temp gets hot enough for each separate one to be tipped.
. . Maybe he will go back and reply to my point #2 now.
.

I have no specific issue with the IPCC reports. I await the IPCC models that predict societal collapse and nuclear plants melting down as a result.

[Steve_American]

#1 The only thing that gets to decide who is right is the evidence, for which your claim has very little, and is akin to fearmongering. Let's treat this like science as it should be, not speculation. Claims without adequate evidence should be rejected. At best your claim is one of a great many possible outcomes.

#2 This line of thinking is similar to your bold claims and predictions regarding MMT, also based on little evidence and a lot of faith. People making bold claims without evidence are dangerous because some might actually believe them. Enter: people not vaxxing their children due to fears of autism.

#1 --- Well, we can wait and see what happens in the future.
Predicting many/most future events is hard, and can't be proven in any case. It is the future after all.
Some can be predicted, like I will die before 2100, for example.

#2 --- Well, I have read none of the hundreds of peer reviewed papers by professional MMTers. I assume that you have not either. The evidence is there in those papers.

I think that you don't understand my claims about MMT. They are =>
a] We should try their Federal Job Guarantee Program that is locally administrated. It is to pay a "socially inclusive" wage, maybe $23/hr.
b] That the national debt can only be paid down/off with newly created dollars and it can never be paid down more than a tiny amount by having a Federal surplus. Therefore, we have to stop worrying about its size. There is no evidence that there is any limit to its size (note the rate of increase can be too fast, though).
c] That the US Gov. can have larger deficits and not cause inflation over 3%, if we had an ideal market. An ideal market here is one in which no corp has any monopoly pricing power.
d] My own idea is that the JGP wage be reduced and it be supplemented with a UBI. This UBI will be variable so that the national income can be changed without Congressional action, if or when inflation gets too high. Although, we need to not worry about inflation from supply shocks, as there is nothing to do about it that doesn't crush some group of citizens. [IMHO, if we need to crush any group , we should crush the very rich because they will do just fine no matter how much we 'crush' them.]
. . Many say that the Gov. should not be picking winners and losers, but forcing unemployment up to 10% is picking losers. So, IMHO it should not be the method used to control inflation. So, inflation from supply shocks is just the free market doing its thing to distribute the few things to those with the most money, and as such it isn't worth crushing 10% of the workers to fight it.
.

[Steve_American]

I have no specific issue with the IPCC reports. I await the IPCC models that predict societal collapse and nuclear plants melting down as a result.

IPCC can never produce such a report because the rules it must use give politicians from every country veto power over every word in its reports. The IPCC doesn't create models. It uses reports from peer reviewed papers by 'climate scientists' and they create and/or use climate models.

.

[late]

IPCC can never produce such a report because the rules it must use give politicians from every country veto power over every word in its reports. The IPCC doesn't create models. It uses reports from peer reviewed papers by 'climate scientists' and they create and/or use climate models.

Used to talk with a climate scientist who was part of the IPCC process. He only did it one year, he felt it was all politics.

It was wonderful watching him eviscerate climate trolls.