[Climate Change] Lake Erie up to 60% Covered in Ice

Well when the party controls congress doesn't even acknowledge that global warming caused by co2 emissions is even happening you can't do anything about it.

Before you can discuss solutions you have to have consensus you have a problem that requires a solution.

If it were up to me (which obviously it isn't), I'd say the U.S. should lead a global effort involving every nation to pool together a trillion dollars and accelerated the development of fusion power.

Fusion is the only way we can meet our energy needs without dumping more Co2 into the air, and infact with fusion we could actually reverse the process. The race is get fusion online and in scale faster than we can warm the planet to a devastating degree. Even 10 years sooner could be critical.

Instead of arguing about whether global warming is real, about useless reductions in co2 and hurting world economies, let's go for the solution that would not only help us reduce co2 emissions to near 0, but also yield a new golden age in advancing mankind to new heights.

 

I agree with this.

 

Nicely put.
The guilt is not the issue here but the great thing with adversity is when you're actually facing it, you find new ways to overcome it.
These warnings by scientists shouldn't be heard as "give us money we're all going to die" but rather as encouragement to find new technologies and rethink the way we conduct our lives and businesses.
We can only grow from it if we will try to face it instead of ignoring it.

 

Even if practical fusion power (in terms of you get much more energy out than you put in) were developed today there is no guarantee it would be implemented or adopted. We actually have the technologies today already to address the issue but due to the vast inertia of physical and economic infrastructure have adopted it. The technology for hydrogen fuel cells has been around for a century but hasn't been adopted wide scale.

If we are talking solutions my own view would be a gradual, but much faster than now, shift from fossil fuels while taking these steps:
1. Much greater emphasis on conservation. Many believe to mean that when we go to a pre-industrial state when we can do so without such a drastic sacrifice in our life style. Things like choosing to live closer to work, shopping, schools and etc. can greatly reduce our energy load. Living in a smaller house also. For example does a family of four really need to live in a 5,000 SF mansion miles away from neighbors. Even such simple things as having a smaller lawn and mowing it with a push mower and not using fertilizers. These are small changes but when added up to a whole population over years can make a huge difference.
2. Increased energy efficiency in technology. These changes are already happening and the energy efficiency of cars and computers now is much greater than before. In my own field buildings now can be built and maintained with far greater efficiency than before.
3. A diversification of energy sources with an emphasis on renewable and locally produced energy. Fossil fuels will continue to have their place for decades but to replace them completely it's not a matter of finding a new single source but a matter of gradually shifting to many sources, whether it's wind, solar, geo-thermal, biome, etc. . Besides reducing greenhouse gases too shifting to renewable and local sources means that we aren't dependent upon sources that are far away and maybe not so politically stable. Consider you can generate energy from volatility, heat, light and motion. Our current system is primarily based on the first but anywhere in the world you can find at least one of those.

The solution to dealing with this issue are already available and this isn't so much a problem of technology but of having the political and social will to make the type of widescale changes needed.

 

And there's less guarantees that the solutions you are proposing will prevent sea levels from rising 40 feet which will have drastic if not devastating impact.

Europe is leading the charge on Fusion. That would have been unthinkable in the era of JFK and Ronald Reagan - it should be unthinkable for a Republican, Democratic, or any American. Where is our national pride?

It's unrealistic to expect people to voluntary make changes to their lives for the greater good. Humans don't work that way. Cutting back on fuel use won't happen. You see the resistance in this country. And we haven't even begun to talk about China and India. CO2 emissions are increasing! And even a 50% reduction in Co2 will still lead to heavy increases in temperature. Even if we reduce emissions to 0 today, the temperature may still increase from global warming for another 50 years due to latency.

We're in for a very rough ride, and nothing is going to change it. But we can lay the foundation for the recovery.

Fusion will happen. It's not a question of if, but when. And we can accelerate that time forward. It's a shame that the U.S. is not leading the charge.

 

We have no guarantee that instituting fusion power today will prevent sea levels from rising 40 feet either. The sad truth is we don't know if we've already passed the tipping point.

Anyway my point isn't to argue against fusion power. I'm all for it and strongly support research into it. My point is is that because of the entrenched inertia regarding politics, economics and physical infrastructure is what continues us on hydrocarbons. Even if fusion was practical you still have to replace existing hydrocarbon plants with fusion not to mention all of the internal combustion engines out there. That is why I think looking for a miracle technological cure isn't the answer but figuring out how to conserve, diversify while also developing new technology is.

Just to add one more thing since you brought up China and I was just there last week. As I said earlier the Chinese are big hypocrites since they continue to emit at high levels while not disputing the science. What they are doing though is they are heavily invested in new technologies and are already taking steps to do exactly what I propose. They've got a long way to go but I will at least say they aren't allowing denial to prevent them from recognizing this is a problem.

 

Glad to hear China isn't in a denial state like we are.

I don't think we're that far apart honestly, I am just perhaps more cynical in one way and you are more cynical in another.

I don't see Fusion as a miracle cure - it's a very realistic one in my eyes. It would take decades after the first fusion plant before it replaced out other energy sources and would have the impact - yes this is all true. But my only point is that we better get started now.

While nothing might stop 40 foot sea level rises at this point, the only thing that has a shot at giving us the kind of clean energy to replace co2 and the kinda of limitless energy to do the things necessary to perhaps reverse the effects is Fusion.

Plus Fusion is something everyone can get behind.

 

To follow up on this. I'm not saying any of this is easy. This is a huge problem with no easy or simplistic solutions. Even if the answer is a revolutionary new technology such as fusion it will take a long time to implement it. Consider that for decades after the internal combustion engine technology was available and practical steam was still widely used to power ships and trains.

Any solution will take a lot of political and social will along with big changes in infrastructure. What we can't do though is continue to get mired in denialism when as I noted even without climate change the solutions provide many other benefits.

 

It has already been shown experimentally that CO2 can retain heat, Greenhouse effect, and from observing Venus we see for a fact that in nature CO2 causes global warming. There is plenty of evidence to support that the observed correlation is tied to causation.

 

I see no reason to assume that global warming and this phenomenon are mutually exclusive, nor to assume that they must be causally related.

 

As I understand it, the problem with current fusion research is that all of the money is tied up in ITER's tokamk concept. Even if this proved to be viable, it will only be a large scale. So each plant will produce a lot of power, but cost billions. Also, it will be decades before we see a commercial tokamak.

However, there are a few much smaller fusion concepts out there that give me hope:

Polywell
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics
Tri Alpha Energy, Inc.

Plus, at least a couple of these are aneutronic in nature, meaning you can get electricity directly from the reactor. ITER just creates heat to eventually spin a turbine to create electricity.

 

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/consensus-on-climate-change/

[rquoter]
Conclusion

For the average person (someone who is not a working expert in a particular field) the consensus of scientific opinion must be taken very seriously, and should not be casually tossed aside. In grappling with any scientific question, you should first try to understand what the scientific consensus is, how confident are scientists, is there any significant and viable minority view, and why scientists have come to that conclusion.

Humility and reason dictate that the consensus view should be given appropriate respect. I am not discouraging anyone from trying to understand the evidence first hand, in fact I recommend it. Learn and understand the primary evidence as much as your interest, time, and ability take you. Just be extremely cautious before you believe your opinions trump those of hundreds or thousands of working scientists.

With respect to anthropogenic global warming, there is a solid and confident consensus. You should be especially cautious of rejecting this consensus because it does not agree with your political world view.[/rquoter]

 

What make you think Fusion is the answer? I think we should throw R&D at it but it sounds like a gamble.

I think we you got to try everything until you get a clear *winner* and then throw everything at that. At this point, it's too early to said fusion is the answer IMO. We got proven renewable energy today and they can be deployed to reduce CO2. They can be improved to be more efficient. We also have many potential new source of renewable energy (fusion as you said, bio, whatever else).

China is throwing nearly $500 Billion into clean energy to reduce their air pollution (that's their primary goal, Climate change just happen to be jell with it). Their investment is mainly in using today technologies. They aren't looking at future technology - not much R&D. So, although they are the clear leader in renewable energy investment, it's still a wide open race.

And that race is important. Not just for climate change. We all know that the world need to transition away from fossil fuel. Whoever is the leader(s) of that will lead the next century. The US and other countries is barely investing any R&D in this area. I wish we would do more. We have done some of the thing that China is doing at a much less scale - but those aren't going to give you tomorrow technology. We have increased efficiency with both government actions and improvement in today technology, but we know that is not going to likely to cut it at the end of the day. Keep at it, because really, what else is there to practically do now given the political nature of this, but we should really ramp up our R&D investment and not just for fusion, but everything possible until we hit a winner(s). In the meantime, keep trying to move to renewable as much as you can with what we have now.

 

All the solar panels and windfarms combined will not out produce a single nuclear reactor. It will not impact global warming.

Plus making solar panels is destructive to the environment.

Fusion a gamble? Why is that?

It's no more a gamble than the race to build nukes or go to the moon.

 

What other factors? You mention that but scientists haven't found them. I am curious how you know more than all these scientist.

 

Except you said "that doesn't mean that C02 is the cause" my point is is that we know for a fact that CO2 can cause climactic warming based both on experimental and direct observational evidence. Yes there are many effects that drive the Earth's climate but consider that one reason why people were worried we might be headed towards an ice age was that many of those other factors were pointing towards a possible cooling. Instead we've seen over the course of industrialization a warming which is counter to some of those other factors. The big difference does appear to be a massive spike of atmospheric CO2.

Anyway this still goes to the point that while yes this is incredibly complex and fraught with uncertainty we are talking about playing odds. Simply ignoring what has essentially been an uncontrolled experiment that humans have been running on Earth's climate for the last 200 years without considering potential negative effects is denial.

Using my smoking example yes there are a lot of different factors that can cause lung cancer so does that mean that it makes sense to keep on smoking and just hope that everything turns out all right?

 

And some promising news on the political front.

2/3 of Americans support Government action on Climate Change. Even 48% of Republicans said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who said human-caused climate change is a hoax.

link

Yet...

However...

It's moving along. Hopefully the 2016 election will have climate change as a major issue for Americans to vote on.