The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Think of all the things we don't do now for lack of energy.

That's the problem, it's hard to imagine what we could do if we had more resources. Typically we figure out how to get more resources, and then the explosion of what to do with it happens.

I always thought it would be cool to have a fence made of fire surrounding my home. If fire were cheap, that's what I do. The gate would be a temporary halting of fire near the entrance.

We could be mining asteroids, terraforming celestial bodies, living under the sea... there's no limit to what could be done with no energy/resource limit.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Ignore everything else for the moment,and just concentrate on this one thought: If the demand is reduced,and you're going to replace the source of the supply with something else,do you need to provide as much capacity as before?

That's called pipe dreaming and pushing energy poverty.
The only way the nation might use less over all energy at least for a little while is switching passenger vehicles over to electric and picking up a 3 to 4x increase in energy economy. Replacing gasoline cars and trucks will place a huge increase on electric demand.

[freebeard]

The only way the nation might use less over all energy at least for a little while is....

....no one single thing. Converting the fleet to electric without nuclear (at 1/10th the cost) might have no more benefit than shutting down professional and college sports spectaculars. And converting the stadiums to hydroponic food factories.

The white cliffs of Dover are marine snow.

Deciphering the ancient mysteries of ‘marine snow’
The planet’s largest carbon sink is deep underwater and little understood. Kaya Wilson reports.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscienc...of-marine-snow

The Climate Change Paper So Depressing It's Sending People to Therapy
On average, three people read an academic paper. At least 100,000 have read this—and a lot of them haven't taken it very well.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v...ple-to-therapy

edit: Okay, I read that last article. Take it with a grain of salt

Not everyone was so taken with the paper. Bendell submitted it to a well-respected academic journal for publication, with little success. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal (SAMPJ) told me that the paper was in need of "major revisions" before it would be ready for publication. Bendell ended up publishing it through IFLAS and his blog. "The academic process is such that I took that as an effective rejection," he explains, saying that the reviewers wanted him to fundamentally alter his conclusions. "I couldn't completely rewrite the paper to say that I don't think collapse is inevitable. It was asking for a different paper."

"I think the reason why my framing and my paper took off is that it’s maybe the first time a social scientist was saying these things categorically," he says. "We are seemingly in denial. It's time to break that taboo and have serious conversations about what we do now."

The sky is falling, else they are misreading the science.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

For those who deny economics - how do you explain the facts?

How do you explain highest life expectancy in world history?
How do you explain most wealth per capita than ever?
How do you explain more leisure time than ever?
How do you explain lowest violent mortality than ever?
How do you explain ever decreasing rates of hunger?
How do you explain declining child labor?
How do you explain lowest percent of income spent on food than ever?
How do you explain increasing rates of formal education?
How do you explain literacy at an all time high?

It's not clear that increasing levels of CO2 pose a serious threat to any of the typical ways in which we measure human well-being.

How do these questions relate to anything being discussed in this thread?

It is QUITE clear that increasing levels of carbon dioxide is threatening our economy, our well being, and our future. If you think you understand the economy - but ignore climate change - then you are willfully ignorant.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Assuming this describes Sweden? It fits them better than the USA.
And Swedens carbon emissions are below world average - and getting lower even.

The Californian economy is doing better than ever - and they are moving to renewable energy even more quickly than they had hoped. California would be the FIFTH LARGEST economy; if they were a country.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

All of my questions were rhetorical, in the same spirit as Neil's.

My questions were fact-based and scientific. Quite the opposite of rhetorical.

If you can't explain the facts - then your hypothesis is wrong.

Please explain these facts:

Facts like record high global temperature averages?
How do you explain the rapid loss of ice?
How do you explain the melting tundra, and eruptions of gases?
How do you explain the ocean becoming more acidic?
Why is carbon dioxide at about 413ppm?
Why are plants and animals migrating to new / different regions?
Why are we seeing rapid extinctions?
Why is sea level rising?
Why is there more evaporation?
Why are tropical diseases spreading?
Why are we seeing so many people migrating?
Why are walruses and polar bears starving?
Why are lobsters migrating?
Why is plankton about half of what it was in 1960?
Why have about 70% of flying insects disappeared, since 1989?

[oil pan 4]

If California is so great why do something like 50% of people who live there say they would like to leave the state?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The Californian economy is doing better than ever - and they are moving to renewable energy even more quickly than they had hoped.

The CA economy does well despite their insanity, not because of it.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

My questions were fact-based and scientific. Quite the opposite of rhetorical.

If you can't explain the facts - then your hypothesis is wrong.

So were mine. You're implying that increasing CO2 has/is negatively impacting the wellbeing of humans.

The facts I present show the wellbeing of humans increasing in every significant and measurable way. Correlation does not equal causation, but it's still not something to be ignored. It's not useful to talk only of the negative aspects of something when there are plenty of relevant positive aspects of something.

I could easily talk only about the way in which my wife has placed a burden on my life and that would paint a certain picture of her and how it impacts me. If I don't talk about the many benefits of the marriage, then it doesn't reflect reality.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Why are we seeing rapid extinctions?

https://youtu.be/z07I-RJgTSA?t=79

https://youtu.be/z07I-RJgTSA?t=213

Same video different time stamps (because no transcription available).

[RedDevil]

A promising old battery technology with a fatal flaw gets a new lease of life thanks to a smart invention by Don Sadoway:
A new approach to rechargeable batteries | MIT News
Is isn't power dense but it is cheap and durable and therefore a likely candidate for grid storage.

The MIT link above is what you need to get a grasp of what's happening, but if you prefer a content free video:

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

It got me to search out the battery, so here goes