The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Can your thumbs type this (substituting R for _ because vBulletin is dumb)?

[U_L="xx"]xx[/U_L]

The double quotes are important.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Can your thumbs type this (substituting R for _ because vBulletin is dumb)?

[U_L="xx"]xx[/U_L]

The double quotes are important.

The skill you have that I'm envious of is the use of strikethrough. I always forget how to do that.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Even if things get really bad, they will very slowly get very bad, and humans are among the most adaptable species there is.

Everything else is just S.O.L.?

Re; "slowly": In addition to a temperature spike in the last 45 years, I've noticed tremendous environmental changes just in my infinitesimally short time here. Example Minnesota's transition from a lot of rural area to one continuous cluster-fkkk.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Everything else is just S.O.L.?

I'm saying extreme action right now would make everyone SOL. The moderate action would probably optimize outcome, and the nothing action would make the least fortunate SOL over long periods of time.

Most outcomes have those that are SOL. If the Yankees win the pennant this year, all others are SOL. If I score particularly high in a standardized test, it bumps up the average and reflects poorly on anyone scoring lower.

[Frank Lee]

IIRC extinctions are on the rise, alarmingly so?

[RedDevil]

The climate isn't a stable thing.
The climate is heating now, due to out emissions.

In the future the temperature may be dropping again. If that happens we might turn to fossil fuel to raise carbon emissions to break that trend. If we manage to get one step ahead we might get to a point where we just have to maintain balance.

Such a pity to burn the stuff we'd need by then today...

[All Darc]

The poor elephants...

:-(

[All Darc]

Is that true that each ice age lasts 3x more than a non ice age?

Is that true that a given ice age covered new york with a 3 mile high ice layer?
Even a 0,5 mile high of ice layer would be hard to believe.

Originally Posted by RedDevil

The climate isn't a stable thing.
The climate i heating now, due to out emissions.

In the future the temperature may be dropping again. If that happens we might turn to fossil fuel to raise carbon emissions to break that trend. If we manage to get one step ahead we might get to a point where we just have to maintain balance.

Such a pity to burn the stuff we'd need by then today...

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Breeder reactors don't use water and they can use the nearly unlimited supply of depleted uranium left over from the cold war, naval power reactors and commercial enrichment.




What's going to reduce electrical demand in the future?
It sure isn't going to be all these people switching to battery and plug in cars.
I thought the idea is replace fossil fuel use.
A third of the energy used by the US goes to transportation and most of that energy comes from liquid fossil fuels burned by the vehicle.
I have already established if a 2 car household gets rid of 2 gasoline cars and gets 2 electric vehicles that house holds electrical consumption could double, but that depends on what kind of vehicles they get and how far they drive.
We tried the corn to alcohol thing that's completely dependent on natural gas so that's a dead end.

*'What' is not yet germane to the question.
*We can talk about that after.
*One notion that eats away at me is,that my electrical consumption is 19% of what a friend is using.On very simplistic terms,if this represented the nation as a whole,which I'm not saying is the case; if the nation,today,was doing what I do,and if we're using 8-TW today,then we could satisfy the entire grid with under 1.6-TW.
*I realize that this is very simplistic,it's just a talking point.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The Right Angle crew address the issue.

The Vostok ice cores from Antarctica gave us a 420,000 year snapshot of Earth climate,containing 4-ice ages and interglacials to look at.
Given all the parameters we've been able to model,'baselines' have been identified.
And the paleo record indicates that we're experiencing 'abrupt' changes,which so far,can only be explained by greenhouse gases,anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
To argue otherwise would presume a superior mastery of climate science by non-climate scientists.A rather dubious argument.
Where does their data come from?
Is it open-source?
What statistical models are they using?
If they're using 'scientific' data for their models,and the 'science' is 'flawed',would not their 'conclusions' also be flawed,if based upon the same data.Oxymoronic?
Is their regression analysis,homogenization,Kalman filtering,Kriging,attribution studies,extreme value theories,and Monte-Carlo techniques novel,compared to say,NASA's?
Of course there are baselines.