The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

What would happen if all ice on Earth melted ?

:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIxRVfCpA64

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The gasoline powered vehicle driving, natural gas service using city slickers who reap all the benifts and modern conveniences of a fossil fueled society, but won't do anything to inconvenience them selves in in any way to save the world but still want to fell like they are doing something.
Your typical believer.

If one person doesn't conform to this behavior,then your premise falls apart.
If you have a statistical representation of the distribution of city slickers observed to do nothing,then you've got a useful metric for your argument.
The exception proves the rule.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Maybe have the mods spin it off, or start a new one on your own? This topic is loading Okay now but a few days ago I couldn't see the last half of it.

Isn't Ice Ages, and their comings and goings, sufficiently different than The Consensus to warrant it's own thread?

All Darc — What's relevant to this thread is the four cycles that are peaking together. The Beaufort Gyre and the others, it's somewhere back in the thread.

That's probably a good idea,but since the topic has already come up here,and climate change covers a rather broad range in disciplines,I figured it belongs,since it's critical to understanding sea-level rise.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Bill Gates's Janicki OmniProcessor (water from swage)

Also generates some electricity and the solids have value (fertilizer ? )

But wait a second... Pure water from boiling process it's suposed to be very slow. Try to take water from vapor at your home. Even a giant pan boiling it, with a huge home condenser, would only generate a few liters per day. So a usine even if use industrial process could not clean a lot water to a comunity, unless it's just the amount needing for drink and cooking.

There is this other process, up to use in home, that do not use micro filtration, and it's not very good, since it can't kill all bacteria (just 99,9%) and do not remove disolved soplids or heavy metals or pesticides :

Fast translation help : He collected water from toileds from a bus station, mixed with dirty water he got from a smal farm ground, and mixed both in a bucket.
Cleaning step one it's agglutination (dirty partricles get togeter after a aditive he put on it (firt thing he added), followed by segmantation, filtration and the use of chlorine to kill bacteria and virus (last thing he aded). Sadly no sand filtration, no activated carbon filtration, no reverse osmosis, but it's better than crap dirty water in many poor places.

The guy in the video sent the "home treated water (collected from a toilet and from farm at ground as show in the video) to a lab for tests, before drink, and the lab said it was potable. The lab report do not mention heavy metals or pesticides, so I presume they didn't tested such.

Reverse osmosis it's the best to remove heavy metals and pesticides. For swage water treatment to turn it potable, I found reverse osmosis it's not as expensive as it's for desalinization, since there are much less salts in swage water than in sea water.

Not to worry!
The Suspicious Observer will be able to reliably predict these eruptions far enough in advance of the events, to allow the necessary mass-scale evacuations.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

There is a suposed huge influence about ice ages, but related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun and Earth's axis angle. Thye orvit around the Sun tends to get different in cycles, and also the Earth Axis.

How will humanity try to reduce the effects of ice age, when the next one come?

*there's astronomical forcing
*biogeochemical forcing
*stratospheric volcanic aerosol forcing
*greenhouse gas forcing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All man has control over would be the anthropogenic fraction of greenhouse gases.Other than that,you try and cope,or migrate closer to the Equator,where the rest of humanity has gone.Soylent Green.

[aerohead]

Something mentioned by one of the authors of the reports:
It takes 6-years to put these reports together.
At some time within the process,there is a cut-off,after which no more new data can be submitted for inclusion in the report,otherwise there's just not enough time,nor human resources available to work it in before the publication deadline.
Which means that none of the reports actually include up-to-date information,especially when it concerns amplification events being witnessed by direct observation.
As a consequence,any policy decisions could only be based upon incomplete and obsolete data,under-reporting actual situations.
You may hear testimony from researchers that may appear to contradict values published in 'Reports',and this is the explanation for the disconnect.
Also,some reporting fails to mention caveats in IPCC prediction probabilities,containing potential 'surprises.'
The White House and Congress can be the greatest obstacle to climate action due to the economic implications which would impact a political base or constituents,and campaign donors.

[redpoint5]

I think a similar problem was encountered when putting together the Bible. At some point, it was considered complete. Then Joseph Smith decided it was incomplete, so released the Book of Mormon.

My point is, ultimately you have people making their subjective decision of what to include and what to exclude.

The usefulness of the climate bible will only be apparent if/when predictions come to pass.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The White House and Congress can be the greatest obstacle to climate action due to the economic implications which would impact a political base or constituents,and campaign donors.

The economic impacts from reduced availability to energy from fossil fuel reductions don't just affect a political base. The economic impacts affect everyone. Economy and primary energy are very highly correlated. And it is increasingly obvious from the concerted effort in Germany for example, that rebuildables will not replace even a major fraction of the energy we are now consuming and will be much more intermittent without thermal back up. If energy goes down, the economy will go down. If the economy goes down, our current social system will have to change. The big challenge that we have facing us is how to transition to a degrowth world economic system while still improving the quality of life for the billions of people in developing regions.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I think a similar problem was encountered when putting together the Bible. At some point, it was considered complete. Then Joseph Smith decided it was incomplete, so released the Book of Mormon.

My point is, ultimately you have people making their subjective decision of what to include and what to exclude.

The usefulness of the climate bible will only be apparent if predictions come to pass.

I would mention that,unlike faith-based worldviews,which cannot be tested,Climate science is something which can be reduced to numerical models, run backwards and forwards with degrees of certainty,and are open to to independent verification.
I don't have,nor will have access to IPCC committee members(if that's how they operate),so I can't really bring anything useful to that discussion.
What you might consider,is the fact that,with the state-of-the art in modelling as it is,actual observed processes are exceeding predictions,which may suggest 'abrupt' climate change,which if true,then we'd have no way to adapt to it,as with the Younger-Dryas.
We know that Earth is capable of abrupt climate change.It's happened before.Do you want to invite that to the dance?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

The economic impacts from reduced availability to energy from fossil fuel reductions don't just affect a political base. The economic impacts affect everyone. Economy and primary energy are very highly correlated. And it is increasingly obvious from the concerted effort in Germany for example, that rebuildables will not replace even a major fraction of the energy we are now consuming and will be much more intermittent without thermal back up. If energy goes down, the economy will go down. If the economy goes down, our current social system will have to change. The big challenge that we have facing us is how to transition to a degrowth world economic system while still improving the quality of life for the billions of people in developing regions.

Sure,but short of black-ops,major US policy,as it regards American nationals and their economic future,would be controlled within the beltway.
The coupling between economics and productivity is the reason for decoupling it.
On a good day,renewables are covering 75% of Germany's total electrical load,so on 'good' days,it's pretty sweet!
The undersea cable,from Africa to Europe is laid.Grid inter-ties are evolving.Distributed generation.Schacht's thermo-storage technology is working it's way into solar-concentrated thermal power production for night production capability.It's only going to get better.
I agree with you contextually about the relationship between our fossil-fuel rise to (insert your adjective here),but the game has changed I believe.
We're already growing and improving the quality of life for people without fossil fuel combustion.
Our Constitution is obsolete.We no longer live in the world of our founding fathers.They would have had no idea how corrupt certain American creatures could become,legally.And the influence they could wield.
See if you can find 'deconstruction' in any public address,by any elected public servant.
Since the only democracy we actually have is the marketplace,the only real change we'll ever see will be found there,and probably nowhere else.