site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 21, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"There's no real academic debate about what might happen hundreds of years in the future" - Okay . I know some academics are prone to dramatic predictions of doom, but you know you don't have to take everything they say at face value, right?

In this particular case, what I'm looking at are the results of paleoclimatology studies which looked at the nature of the Earth's climate and atmosphere in the times when the carbon which we are currently pumping into the atmosphere was already there and hadn't been locked away in the form of fossil fuels. There's no real debate on the topic - when you increase the insulating effect of the atmosphere, global temperatures rise. Do you actually have a reasoned and well thought out rebuttal to that claim? I'd love to see it if you do, but so far nobody has managed to step up to the plate.

How can you reconcile 'all ports being underwater soon' with 'actual sea level rise for a century and a half being 0.2 m'. 'all ports Underwater' to me means 'dozens of meters', at least. How do you get from one to the other, when the straight extrapolation falls far short?

It's ironic that you accuse me of not double-checking anything when you claim that I said "all ports being underwater soon" but when I check my actual post I put that event hundreds of years into the future. Soon on a geological timescale to be sure, but the actual answer to this objection is just for you to stop hallucinating.

Why, if we are on a 'nasty transitory period' is, as always, the productivity of farmland increasing?

Because we're pumping massive amounts of fossil fuels into them for one, and because the nasty transition stage is only just beginning. The key points of this nasty transition are going to be an increase in adverse weather events and shifting climate belts that make the optimal distribution of farmland and farming infrastructure very different to where they are now. But on that note, I also said that some people are going to be winners - Russia especially.

Why, if nuclear energy is 'uneconomical', does France have such cheap electricity compared to 'nuclear-exiting' Germany, and why does it export so much of it?

Because France purchased their uranium for cents on the dollar due to their colonial holdings in Africa, and because their government has since bailed out their nuclear power system because it wasn't able to financially sustain itself. I've had this argument several times before - if you want to learn more, look up Françafrique. When you factor in the declining EROEI of current uranium deposits, solar and other renewable energy sources outcompete nuclear in every way that matters - outside of specific circumstances where nuclear's unique characteristics make it valuable (nuclear submarines, precarious geopolitical situations, production of valuable isotopes, etc).

Why, if EROEI is determinant, were past societies with better EROEI so much poorer than we are?

If a doctor makes more money than a janitor, why is a doctor fresh out of medical school with lots of student debt poorer than a janitor who has just retired after saving and investing for their entire career?