5 ms·

Climate change affects both variance and mean of the weather. Which means both colder and hotter weather, and worse large scale events.

gottorf 3y ago
Abundant and reliable energy sources will let us deal with the higher variance; notably, deaths related to climate have decreased to one-third over the fifty years from 1970 to 2019[0], even as the human population more than doubled. That isn't one-third the rate, it's one-third in absolute number. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  Even a perfect engine is not 100% efficient, if we don’t find a way to expel more energy or reduce the energy we use, we will only create more heat and will need even more energy to deal with it. It is also the case that a large part of the world is simply not built to withstand such temperatures, and using more energy to accommodate that means putting more heat into the atmosphere.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > we will only create more heat and will need even more energy to deal with it Yes, that's a thermodynamic certainty. But the moment Homo sapiens left the year-round pleasant high plains of East Africa, we were going to need energy; you can't blame the caveman for lighting a stick on fire to keep himself warm. > a large part of the world is simply not built to withstand such temperatures People live in some truly inhospitable places, some cold, some hot, and have done so since before modern conveniences. Unless the plan is to make sure everyone in the world lives in places where you naturally don't need (or want) heat or air conditioning, the extra heat in the atmosphere is the price we must pay.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      I don't think you appreciate what you are asking here. Infrastructure in London was melting last summer, lots of our infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, which is severely inefficient, and will require even more energy.
      - gottorf 3y ago
        Then we must adapt and rebuild the infrastructure. What's the alternative, that everyone just abandon London? Climate scientists agree that if the world stopped all carbon emissions today, at the snap of a magical finger, the planet will continue to warm for the foreseeable future. It seems to me then that the correct path out is through, not backwards. And "through" involves building and rebuilding, using whatever energy sources are economical. By all means, bring renewables in that fold, but renewables alone are far from sufficient. It's not just a matter of everyone driving Teslas instead of F-250s, or indeed even of everyone cramming into electric-powered city buses or walking instead of using automobiles. The primary industries are all still powered by vast amounts of fossil fuels: the huge mining trucks, farm tractors, and backhoes that produce the real things that real people need to consume to survive, have such high energy density requirements that there are no viable electric alternatives yet.
nlitened 3y ago
How?
- gottorf 3y ago
  Not the GP, but as I understand it: the more energy in the system, the greater the extremes.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  Events like the polar jet-stream split are a consequence of increased temperature, and their frequency increases with heat. When the jet-stream splits, air from Sahara gets trapped between the now two or three streams, and cannot escape. This creates a heat dome that we can’t manipulate and change.

gottorf 3y ago

Abundant and reliable energy sources will let us deal with the higher variance; notably, deaths related to climate have decreased to one-third over the fifty years from 1970 to 2019[0], even as the human population more than doubled. That isn't one-third the rate, it's one-third in absolute number. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
Even a perfect engine is not 100% efficient, if we don’t find a way to expel more energy or reduce the energy we use, we will only create more heat and will need even more energy to deal with it. It is also the case that a large part of the world is simply not built to withstand such temperatures, and using more energy to accommodate that means putting more heat into the atmosphere.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > we will only create more heat and will need even more energy to deal with it Yes, that's a thermodynamic certainty. But the moment Homo sapiens left the year-round pleasant high plains of East Africa, we were going to need energy; you can't blame the caveman for lighting a stick on fire to keep himself warm. > a large part of the world is simply not built to withstand such temperatures People live in some truly inhospitable places, some cold, some hot, and have done so since before modern conveniences. Unless the plan is to make sure everyone in the world lives in places where you naturally don't need (or want) heat or air conditioning, the extra heat in the atmosphere is the price we must pay.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    I don't think you appreciate what you are asking here. Infrastructure in London was melting last summer, lots of our infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, which is severely inefficient, and will require even more energy.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      Then we must adapt and rebuild the infrastructure. What's the alternative, that everyone just abandon London? Climate scientists agree that if the world stopped all carbon emissions today, at the snap of a magical finger, the planet will continue to warm for the foreseeable future. It seems to me then that the correct path out is through, not backwards. And "through" involves building and rebuilding, using whatever energy sources are economical. By all means, bring renewables in that fold, but renewables alone are far from sufficient. It's not just a matter of everyone driving Teslas instead of F-250s, or indeed even of everyone cramming into electric-powered city buses or walking instead of using automobiles. The primary industries are all still powered by vast amounts of fossil fuels: the huge mining trucks, farm tractors, and backhoes that produce the real things that real people need to consume to survive, have such high energy density requirements that there are no viable electric alternatives yet.

nlitened 3y ago

How?

gottorf 3y ago
Not the GP, but as I understand it: the more energy in the system, the greater the extremes.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
Events like the polar jet-stream split are a consequence of increased temperature, and their frequency increases with heat. When the jet-stream splits, air from Sahara gets trapped between the now two or three streams, and cannot escape. This creates a heat dome that we can’t manipulate and change.