The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

The sun's output has been unexpectedly low, for a while now. We have seen significant warming despite the lower output from the sun.

The numbers I have been seeing are that a bit less than 60% of voters feel that climate change is a big issue. Given that there are actual flat earthers here in the US, that makes it more significant that climate change is recognized as an important issue.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Do they really think the earth is flat?

[oil pan 4]

That less than 20% number doesn't mean only 20% of people care about the environment. That means only 20% have bought into the man made global warming mass hysteria.
Around 2/3 of people think climate change, both natural and man made is an important issue. I agree climate change could easily kill off 95% of the population. The last ice age may have killed off up to 99% of humans.
Just in recorded history climate change has caused wars, famine, mass migration. Climate change could have created the concept of warfare it's self.

The total irradiance of the sun has increased 0.1% to 0.05% from maunder minimum to present.
So we are talking the difference of around 1 watt per square meter.

[freebeard]

NeilBlanchard — Unexpectedly?

The Current Solar Minimum and Its Consequences for Climate - Evidence-Based Climate Science - Chapter 11

Summary

The current solar minimum, named here the Eddy Minimum, is a de Vries Cycle event expected to consist of Solar Cycles 24 and 25. It arrived on schedule at 210 years after the start of the last major minimum, the Dalton Minimum from 1798. Work by Fix (this volume) suggests that this minimum will be two solar cycles long.

Solar cycles are 11 years long.

edit:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Around 2/3 of people think climate change, both natural and man made is an important issue. I agree climate change could easily kill off 95% of the population. The last ice age may have killed off up to 99% of humans.

If we can engineer the technology to live on Mars, we can engineer the technology to live on an Ice Age Earth.

Thus it comes down to willingness to share the technology with the 95% of humanity that is focused on pets, sports and religion.

[Xist]

Dog racing is my religion.

Can we survive on Venus? That is we are going if we do not put seaweed in our chili!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The numbers I have been seeing are that a bit less than 60% of voters feel that climate change is a big issue.

Even 50% is a surprising number to me.

It's not that climate change isn't a big issue, it's that I can readily list 10 things that more drastically affect human health and wellness that are more immediate than climate change. The list of 10 things is what I can come up with given no thought to what harms people. The list would have 50 things ahead of climate change if I gave 30 minutes of thought to it.

... and then there is the whole problem of having no reasonable way to stop climate change.

Ask a 100 year old person what are the 10 worst things they experienced in their lifetime. I'd be surprised if climate change makes the list. The next 100 years is supposed to experience about the same amount of change as the previous 100 years.

[oil pan 4]

Yeah a CME completely destroying most of the world's power grids.
But most people outside of new Zealand or the north east united States have any idea that solar activity can knock out power.

[niky]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Why then do hunter gathering societies typically regulate their population to a steady number over centuries.

And no it’s not the “environment “ that does it.

Infant mortality, diseases, lack of resources, lack of protein sources (mhm... cannibalism)

-

Of course, we're not hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherer societies are societies in stasis, with no growth. But not always due to design.

There's a reason the number of young people willing to stay inside these tribes dwindles to nothing once they've been exposed to modern life.

We're modern humans who've grown up with the idea of continuous growth. But we still retain the same feast-or-famine instincts as our forebearers. Consume as much as possible now, in case you catch nothing on tomorrow's hunt.

Which is also why so many modern humans are obese.

We are biologically driven to consume to survive. Our instincts are of no help in terms of conservation. Conservation has to be taught.

Originally Posted by freebeard

If we can engineer the technology to live on Mars, we can engineer the technology to live on an Ice Age Earth.

Thus it comes down to willingness to share the technology with the 95% of humanity that is focused on pets, sports and religion.

Technically, we can engineer almost anything, given infinite time and resources.

Obviously, we don't have that much. So it comes down to how much we can do.

[freebeard]

Dog racing is my religion.

Can we survive on Venus?

You managed to roll those three up very well.

Surprisingly, Venus is possibly the most hospitable extraterrestrial
place. ...50 miles up in the atmosphere. Similar gravity and air pressure, just no oxygen.

Steampunk dirigibles, anyone?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

NeilBlanchard — Unexpectedly?

The Current Solar Minimum and Its Consequences for Climate - Evidence-Based Climate Science - Chapter 11



Solar cycles are 11 years long.

I am not just talking about the 11 / 22 year cycle of sun spots. The sun is expected to increase over time (like all midsized stars) and it has had a drop off from that long term trend. It is lower output than it "could" be.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That less than 20% number doesn't mean only 20% of people care about the environment. That means only 20% have bought into the man made global warming mass hysteria.

Hysteria? That doesn't describe science, and it doesn't describe what we know.

It does describe your opinion - but your opinion about facts doesn't change them.