The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

What we know so far.
Few are willing to pay more than $10 a month to fix climate change, this includes a good portion of the believers.
Even fewer people would allow government to expand size and power to fix climate, most people are against that idea.
Anything the United States does will be eclipsed by china.
Warming is better than cooling (unless you're below sea level, then your poor choice in lack of elevation is not my problem).

[RedDevil]

It is blatantly obvious that many choose to ignore the problems they cause by emitting excess amounts of carbon.

You can blame people for not willing to spend money 'fixing' the 'problem' of cleaning somebody else's waste. Do they understand they are not willing to pay for the waste they produce themselves?
I bet the survey did not point that out.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

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.

No, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide =/= doubling the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is only one of many heat-absorbing gases, and we would have to double the concentration of all of them to double the heat-absorbing capacity of the atmosphere as a whole.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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?

If we're going to limit the discussion to climate change,then we ought to represent global-scale quanta,rather than regional data.
Western Europe and USA agricultural output would in no way represent the global food supply.
I'm not saying that you're cherry-picking,but it's an incomplete data set.
There are other food security issues some of us have already shared, and I'm given to presume that none of it matters,and what's the point of busting our balls to research data and present it, when it appears to just pass without consideration.You --ss on our gifts without a thank you or a --ck you,and ignore it as if it doesn't exist.
'Cast not your pearls before swine.' Jesus

[aerohead]

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.

*The Haber-Bosch process can fix nitrogen directly from the atmosphere.It does require heat,but that could come from renewable energy.
*Farm equipment could be electrified.The present,water-filled ballasted tires could become the batteries.
*We presently have EV tractor-trailers in the pipeline.Transportation doesn't seem to be a big deal.
*Mining can be electrified.Some of it already is.
*Phosphorous IS an issue.Regardless of climate change.

[aerohead]

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.

The issue is non-linear,abrupt climate change,with feedback-loop-fed,accelerating acceleration,in which we,the flora,and fauna cannot possibly adapt to,due to the speed at which it will happen.
We'll quite literally be living on a different planet than the one everything evolved for.

[Taylor95]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

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.

Very good point. I see this all the time in my field. I suppose it is my duty as a student of science to give more value to the data and conclusions they have reached. However, there is much we do not understand, and climate science is complex. I believe it was only 60 years ago that the experts of the day expected us to enter another ice age soon. Global cooling was the panic back then. That kind of flip flop makes me hesitant to accept what the current theory is now.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

*The anthropogenic component of the warming is all we ever had an ability to address.
*This warming is the driver for the non-natural-variability-related rates of change we're experiencing.
*We are presently witnessing the inability for natural systems to adapt.
*Scientists caught hell in the 1970s when they mentioned a global cooling trend they were observing.
*They can't win for losing.
*Scientists are the new black.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

What we know so far.
Few are willing to pay more than $10 a month to fix climate change, this includes a good portion of the believers.
Even fewer people would allow government to expand size and power to fix climate, most people are against that idea.
Anything the United States does will be eclipsed by china.
Warming is better than cooling (unless you're below sea level, then your poor choice in lack of elevation is not my problem).

*Has it been established that we need to spend anything extra to address climate change? Specifics?
*If all Americans vote for climate change mitigation with their dollars,in a free market,would that leave the government anything to do?
*What China does is up to China and any UN conventions that they're a signatory to.
*We're responsible for the USA.
*The warming/cooling comment would be contextual/conditional

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*The anthropogenic component of the warming is all we ever had an ability to address.

Not in the slightest. We can develop GMOs to increase crop production in the environments in which they grow. We can build dikes and live below sea level, as shown by Denmark. We can build tougher structures to withstand wind storms.

Normally I'm in favor of addressing the root of an issue, but in the case of the outdoor thermostat, that doesn't seem as feasible as dressing appropriately.