The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

That's "whataboutism" - and it is moot...

Are you okay with 50% poorer crop production? How about millions of deaths, and 100's of millions of displaced people? What happens when the 6 rivers fed by Himalayan glaciers diminish? This only affects about HALF the world's people ...

So then you launch into your own whataboutisms?

Why would we expect a continual 50% poorer crop production? People aren't stupid; we grow what the climate allows us to grow. That might mean crops that are no longer able to be efficiently grown in one location will move to another location.

Tell me, what year should we expect even 1% lower crop yields? Let's start with that before we proclaim a 50% reduction. That 50% number is very convenient too. Does the science really say 50% loss rather than 32%, or 44%? Very interesting that we are ruining things to exactly get 50% loss.





Should we also expect no progress with GMOs, too?

[freebeard]

Episode 422 Scott Adams: I Predict That Fake News Will Destroy all Life on Earth. With Coffee

At 24:00 he says David Wallace Wells is persuasive, compares with Heller and Lomborg.

Episode 423 Scott Adams: Scott Solves the Climate Debate and Saves the World (Really)

Not persuasive:

hockey stick
complex model out to 80 years
97% (not all)

Persuasive: the last person you listened to.

[RedDevil]

Crops...


It turns out that the amount of food crops produced closely matches the population and livestock. It makes sense to produce what you can sell but not much more.

As long as there's still enough fresh water to irrigate the land, fertilizer to make the crops grow and forests to slash or burn to create more farm land food won't be the main concern.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Crops...


It turns out that the amount of food crops produced closely matches the population and livestock. It makes sense to produce what you can sell but not much more.

As long as there's still enough fresh water to irrigate the land, fertilizer to make the crops grow and forests to slash or burn to create more farm land food won't be the main concern.

Natural gas for fertilizer (and heat). 70 years. Liquid fuel for farm equipment and transportation to the megacities, and for digging up Phosphorous. 30 years. And Phosphorous. ??? Which could turn out to be the first limiting input. 10 Billion hungry people.

[redneck]

.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

>

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

Natural gas for fertilizer (and heat). 70 years. Liquid fuel for farm equipment and transportation to the megacities, and for digging up Phosphorous. 30 years. And Phosphorous. ??? Which could turn out to be the first limiting input. 10 Billion hungry people.

Definitely Phosphorus. Land, water and energy have a solution.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vertical+farming

[oil pan 4]

Fun new poll numbers are out.
Only 12% of American voters believe that the government should be expanded and given power to "fix climate change".
52% of American voters are against it.
What do you call it when you think you have something but it turns out that no one really believes in it?

I say the government use its existing power build more nuclear, close most of the coal plants and most of the natural gas plants.
Save the coal for making steel and the natural gas for synthetic fertilizer and home heating.

[Taylor95]

I can't believe how many posts are on this topic. I'm all for being more efficient, though more for the economic sense of it and to better utilize our resources. Has anyone considered here that efforts to curb CO2 production are futile? Supposedly there has been 6 mass extinctions in earth's history, and multiple cycles of heating and cooling. I theorize that nothing humans do will change what the climate will ultimately do. According to one source, we are in an interglacial warm period. After some thousands of years, the earth will cool off again, which will cause many of its own problems for us.

[redpoint5]

What you have stated has been mentioned dozens of times throughout the life of this thread.

The warming period we're in began long before humans were prolific, but we're accelerating the warming. Warming itself isn't the problem, rather the rate of change. Slow enough change, and things have time to adapt. Rapid change, and things struggle to adapt.

Cooling would certainly be worse.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

I can't believe how many posts are on this topic. I'm all for being more efficient, though more for the economic sense of it and to better utilize our resources. Has anyone considered here that efforts to curb CO2 production are futile? Supposedly there has been 6 mass extinctions in earth's history, and multiple cycles of heating and cooling. I theorize that nothing humans do will change what the climate will ultimately do. According to one source, we are in an interglacial warm period. After some thousands of years, the earth will cool off again, which will cause many of its own problems for us.

You can theorize based on your knowledge and insight. But you are not an expert.
Climate scientists are the experts, and they overwhelmingly agree we are ruining the planet by burning excess amounts of fossil fuel.
You don't have to agree with them, but that means you believe you know better than the specialists.

The specialists calculate the speed at which the sea level will rise based upon the speed at which the large bodies of ice are melting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise


We've doubled the CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.
So we doubled the amount of heat that gets reflected back to the earth, hence the raising global average temperature, hence the melting ice and raising seas.
We need to reduce CO2 output as much as possible, even if the effects of that won't be felt immediately nor prevent a massive climate change. It will just be slightly less bad.

Futile? Depends on who you ask.
Check out the historic CO2 emissions per capita per country.
You can see big differences between countries, also many developed countries actively reducing carbon emissions.
Even the United States, though the per capita emissions are still very high compared to European countries.

Earths history spans almost 5 billion years. I'm not too concerned about what is going to happen in a billion years from now. Or in a thousand for that matter.

But what we are doing now impacts the world right now. By the time my kids are old we already may have lost large parts of our country to the rising seas. Carbon emissions will have impact on their life. And no doubt they'd worry about the future for the kids they may get.