The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

From:
POLICY FORUM
'Economic Growth,Carrying Capacity,and the Environment'
by Arrow,Bolin,Costanza,Dasgupta,Folke,Holling,Jansso n,Levin,Maler,Perrings,and Pimental,
SCIENCE,VOL. 268,28 April 1995,pp.520-21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article turns out to be a counterpoint to Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomberg's appraisal for priorities,action,inaction,and policy priorities with respect to climate change.
*The eleven economists argue that:
-GNP is far from adequate as a measure of true economic performance.
-Economic growth is not a panacea for environmental quality;indeed,it is not even the main issue.What matters is the content of growth-the composition of inputs (including environmental resources) and outputs (including waste products).
-CO2 emissions are an increasing function of per capita income.
-(T)here are many different development paths of which can de-link economic growth from CO2 emissions (you don't need fossil fuels to grow the economy)
-Economic activities are sustainable if the life-support ecosystems on which they depend are resilient.
-In fact,if this base were to be irreversibly degraded,economic activity itself could be at risk.
-The inverted U-shaped curve used by economists to relate wealth and environment is used out of context,is very conditional,and cannot,must not be used to make sweeping,general claims and predictions.
-The solution to environmental degradation would compel private users of environmental resources to take account of the social costs of their actions.
-All of this implies that there are limits to the carrying capacity of the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If two heads are better than one,maybe eleven are even better?

[freebeard]

'not sure this passed the smell-test with the geology community.

That was about the [off-label] usage of 'cosmetic'.

I don't know about cosmic rays and volcanoes, but there is a connection between telluric currents and earthquakes.

[redpoint5]

I thought all weather was caused by Chinese butterflies?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

That was about the [off-label] usage of 'cosmetic'.

I don't know about cosmic rays and volcanoes, but there is a connection between telluric currents and earthquakes.

That's super plausible!
Earth is like candy with a crunchy shell,over a liquid interior and jaw breaker center.
Ancient heat and radioactive decay drive the liquid metal, driving the magnetic field,which feeds back to the circulating magnetic liquid.
Circulation,friction,heating,density stratification,gravitational stress,rotational equatorial stress,shock-waves,reverberations,reflections through the Jello, finally perturb the overlying skin.Beautiful!

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

All of this implies that there are limits to the carrying capacity of the planet.

Exactly. And the current (and still growing) population has only been made possible via that vast consumption of super dense fossil energy. And can't continue at this level of wealth, surplus, and consumption, as it starts to dwindle in 30 years. There is no viable replacement for liquid fuel at anywhere near this scale.
.
You have obviously been doing a great deal of studying since joining this thread. Have you checked out the Nate Hagens' "Blind Spots" presentation yet?
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
If you really want a well rounded understanding of the feasibility of rebuildables replacing what we have now, you will want to pick up a copy of David MacKay's book, "without the hot air".
.
https://www.amazon.com/Sustainable-E...dp_kinw_strp_1
.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Exactly. And the current (and still growing) population has only been made possible via that vast consumption of super dense fossil energy. And can't continue at this level of wealth, surplus, and consumption, as it starts to dwindle in 30 years. There is no viable replacement for liquid fuel at anywhere near this scale.
.
You have obviously been doing a great deal of studying since joining this thread. Have you checked out the Nate Hagens' "Blind Spots" presentation yet?
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
If you really want a well rounded understanding of the feasibility of rebuildables replacing what we have now, you will want to pick up a copy of David MacKay's book, "without the hot air".
.
https://www.amazon.com/Sustainable-E...dp_kinw_strp_1
.

Thanks Sendler,I'll try and get to all the literature if I can.
Without a computer at home and only limited time during the week to get to a computer,it's tough for me to do any meaningful online research.
I was given part of a friend's library after he passed,which includes SCIENCE and NATURE.The contributors to these mags are the folks involved in the IPCC reports each go around.They're considered the gold standard for peer-reviewed science of all kinds.
I appreciate the links.

[aerohead]

It will be 2-weeks before I can 'hear' Hagens You-Tube as I won't have access to the Saturday-only computer, with audio until then.(community work party and memorial service for a neighbor who died).
I did just look at a synopsis of MacKay.
My immediate impression,is that his argument is reminiscent of those which attempt to employ the Jevon's Paradox as if it were a absolute rather than a conditional,contextual,artifice.
There is a historical precedent in the USA in which the national energy load was literally transformed overnight by government edict.
It required a war declaration,but no structural changes to existing infrastructure.
The federal govt.took control of propaganda,industry,transportation,the motion picture industry,radio,print media,rubber,oil,agriculture,railroads,education,s peed limits,instituted rationing,redefined manhood,patriotism,loyalty,................... the list goes on and on.
I don't know what MacKay's life experiences are,but he may be completely ignorant of social dynamics which are in no way abstract.
I'll dig deeper,but I'm already questioning his perspicacity coefficient,mandatory in the art of war.

[sendler]

MacKay's book is a completely unbiased engineering study, by an engineer, on all of the possible generation methods for primary energy, how much we use, how much we can save, and what it would take to replace fossil fuel.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Can you please provide the reference?

I read about it some time ago in the New Scientist, but can't find back that copy right now.
Anyway, from wikipedia:

In the past decade, polar ice caps have shown their most rapid decline in size with no true sign of recovery.[7] Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist at NASA, found that the “rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years.”[8] In September 2012, sea ice reached its smallest size ever. Journalist John Vidal stated that sea ice is "700,000 sq km below the previous minimum of 4.17m sq km set in 2007".[9] In August 2013, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 6.09m km2, which represents 1.13 million km2 below the 1981–2010 average for that month.

At that rate there won't be much left in 2025.

[oil pan 4]

If the polar ice caps melted wasn't that going to raise sea levels like 300'?
If "in the past decade the polar ice caps have shown their most rapid decline in size" and the sea level has only risen enough to effect a few very poorly planned coastal cities, remind me what everyone was so worried about?