The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Robots don't need to pull weeds, they can just poke them back underground while they're still sprouts too small to grasp.

Hydoponics is demonstrable technology. Pick and place robots are a thing. It's just a matter of stacking them vertically.

Ontopic: Suspicious 0bservers: We're all gonna die dept.:

Abrupt global events in the Earth’s history: a physics perspective - GregoryRyskin
https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0312/0312617.pdf

The world ends not with a bang or whimper, just a bad smell.

Data-driven model of the solar corona above an active region - J. Warnecke and H. Peter
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00455.pdf

Solar fusion has the heat of a compost pile.

Saltwater is conductive.If a voltage potential was ever present,it would immediately flow to zero-potential,equilibrium through the water to an earth ground,anywhere along it's lithospheric boundary.
We know,from ocean floor,transoceanic cable research that Earth produces no potential,nor magnetic field in a 'Faraday' conductor adjacent to the would-be ocean 'dynamo'.The absence of voltage and magnetic field is observable scientific evidence that an ocean dynamo is a figment of the imagination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the Sun,Earth's climate is only 17-kilometers tall.There are some weak insolation and long-wave radiative couplings above the troposphere,but mostly what happens to our climate is contained between the ocean surface and 17-kilometers of atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space weather plays a minute role,with respect to cloud condensation nuclei and albedo,but they've been included within the climate models for decades,and short of a mass coronal ejection or gamma-ray burst from a local nova event,space weather doesn't mean doodly-squat to climate.
Communications? Yes.

[NeilBlanchard]

For those who deny the science - how do you explain the facts?

Facts like record high global temperature averages?
How do you explain the rapid loss of ice?
How do you explain the melting tundra, and eruptions of gases?
How do you explain the ocean becoming more acidic?
Why is carbon dioxide at about 413ppm?
Why are plants and animals migrating to new / different regions?
Why are we seeing rapid extinctions?
Why is sea level rising?
Why is there more evaporation?
Why are tropical diseases spreading?
Why are we seeing so many people migrating?
Why are walruses and polar bears starving?
Why are lobsters migrating?
Why is plankton about half of what it was in 1960?
Why have about 70% of flying insects disappeared, since 1989?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The cost of "inaction" is purely speculation.
Going to about 6 times gdp in debit the country will financially implode and there will be no new green deal bs.
There will be no money to buy solar panels or put up wind turbines and improved building efficiency.
Everyone will be poor and using dirty energy like russia after the fall of the soviet union or Venezuela.

*If the CBO,and those who subscribe to their logic, dismiss the trillions of dollars price tag as being too great a price,it implies that the CBO has also run a complete cost-benefit analysis which illustrates the cost of mitigation.How else could they argue the difference?
I'm only asking for the other Dollar value.
How can a democracy work without an informed populace? It under girds the entire premise of the United States.
Some economists value Earth's goods and services at $33-trillion a year.If we stand to lose these services,what have we gained by keeping Bertha's Kitty Boutique and Powder Milk Biscuits in business?
PS Who runs the CBO? Are they a presidential appointee,former lobbyist? Have they an agenda to sully the scientific voice as per the last 50-years.And are the hard-working souls at the CBO under gag-order not to say a thing which undermines the appointee's agenda?Like they've done with NASA?

[redpoint5]

For those who deny economics - how do you explain the facts?

How do you explain highest life expectancy in world history?
How do you explain most wealth per capita than ever?
How do you explain more leisure time than ever?
How do you explain lowest violent mortality than ever?
How do you explain ever decreasing rates of hunger?
How do you explain declining child labor?
How do you explain lowest percent of income spent on food than ever?
How do you explain increasing rates of formal education?
How do you explain literacy at an all time high?

It's not clear that increasing levels of CO2 pose a serious threat to any of the typical ways in which we measure human well-being.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The second law of thermodynamics and transparent accounting for all energy inputs/per unit output will decide the day.

PV and wind power make up around 3% of the 4 trillion kwh of energy the US uses its already been decided.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

For those who deny economics - how do you explain the facts?

How do you explain highest life expectancy in world history?
How do you explain most wealth per capita than ever?
How do you explain more leisure time than ever?
How do you explain lowest violent mortality than ever?
How do you explain ever decreasing rates of hunger?
How do you explain declining child labor?
How do you explain lowest percent of income spent on food than ever?
How do you explain increasing rates of formal education?
How do you explain literacy at an all time high?

It's not clear that increasing levels of CO2 pose a serious threat to any of the typical ways in which we measure human well-being.

Assuming this describes Sweden? It fits them better than the USA.
And Swedens carbon emissions are below world average - and getting lower even.

[sendler]

Yes. Sweden's electicity is 50% hydro and 50% nuclear.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

For those who deny economics - how do you explain the facts?

How do you explain highest life expectancy in world history?
How do you explain most wealth per capita than ever?
How do you explain more leisure time than ever?
How do you explain lowest violent mortality than ever?
How do you explain ever decreasing rates of hunger?
How do you explain declining child labor?
How do you explain lowest percent of income spent on food than ever?
How do you explain increasing rates of formal education?
How do you explain literacy at an all time high?

It's not clear that increasing levels of CO2 pose a serious threat to any of the typical ways in which we measure human well-being.

It's not clear that increasing levels of CO2 do not pose a serious threat to any of the typical ways in which we measure human well-being?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of what you call the 'typical ways' we measure human well being may be the habitability of the planet we all live on.
It will be the effects of increasing levels of CO2 that pose a serious threat,not the CO2.(context)
Increasing levels of heat pose no threat to someone already dead from heat exposure.
A complete diet of deep-fried butter cannot alter the life expectancy of a morbidly-obese person already on the brink of a massive heart attack.
And as economists are want to say,'the closer you are to death,the less more life you have,but there's still more.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a growing body of observed, empirical evidence, which suggests, with high confidence,a probability that we have only limited time to arrest,and reverse greenhouse gas emissions,or it will be a global existential situation we're facing.
And in the context of a single human lifetime,these effects will be irreversible.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

PV and wind power make up around 3% of the 4 trillion kwh of energy the US uses its already been decided.

Please read permalink#5295 on page 30,and see if you can say the same thing twice.

[oil pan 4]

Doesn't change anything.
In 30 years solar might be able to provide 5% of the United States energy.
If we take all the solar we have now, build that much every single year for 30 years we could have 6% of our energy in 30 years from solar.
That's assuming no degradation or disasters taking out panels and assuming there is 0 growth in demand for 30 years.
That doesn't appear possible.
If we built nuclear reactors at a fairly lackadaisical pace for 30 years, with increasing energy demand we could provide an additional 10% of the energy used by the United states with nuclear. Nothing would change and no one would even notice.
That's total energy not just electricity.