The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

I could live in a van down by the river and be content, so everything else is gravy.

[sendler]

Me too. And this is the footprint we must all aspire to.

[All Darc]

Bio methane + natural gas can create hydrogen???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE0A_t1-77Y

[freebeard]

I could live in a van down by the river and be content, so everything else is gravy.

If we're talking hypotheticals, I could be content with a van like the 1992 BMW Columbus:


1992 BMW Columbus (ItalDesign) - Studios

[Grant-53]

Each prediction is based upon a set of assumptions. it is an extrapolation of known data and perceived trends. Natural systems tend to self regulate. People tend to make substitutions when one product no longer is viable. I have lived on the 'eve of destruction' my whole life. Without a definite Pareto diagram of the factors influencing weather and climate or per-capital resource production there is little certainty of making precise predictions more than five years into the future. We can take prudent steps to minimize waste heat and conserve farm and forest land. I suspect these are root issues.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by Grant-53

Each prediction is based upon a set of assumptions. it is an extrapolation of known data and perceived trends. Natural systems tend to self regulate. People tend to make substitutions when one product no longer is viable. I have lived on the 'eve of destruction' my whole life. Without a definite Pareto diagram of the factors influencing weather and climate or per-capital resource production there is little certainty of making precise predictions more than five years into the future. We can take prudent steps to minimize waste heat and conserve farm and forest land. I suspect these are root issues.

That is exactly our problem. We have subverted every natural regulation on ourselves--we invented healthcare and medicine to extend our lives and to keep alive those who would have died naturally before the advent of medical technology (for example, my appendix ruptured three years ago. Prior to the twentieth century, I would be dead--and indeed, this is exactly what killed my great-great-grand uncle, Brigham Young, in 1877, Through technology, my mother has been kept alive for 14 years with terminal bone marrow cancer--but only at great monetary and resource cost). We have made infant mortality almost unheard of in the developed world. We have sated ourselves with a seemingly endless supply of cheap food, high in the macronutrients which we crave because they were in short supply during our evolution but which are bad for us in the quantities we eat them now, and we address this by throwing more resources of medicine and surgical technology at it. We think nothing of consuming goods that have been transported several times around the world, at enormous expense of energy, composed of resources dug up in far-flung places. We count it unthinkable to live in a shelter that isn't extremely large and climate-controlled. Only a portion of our population has engaged in all these things (US, Europe), while the rest are racing to catch up now (China). Despite this, there is evidence that we are well on our way to altering our environment such that it is not clear it will be suitable for our continued habitation. If nature self-corrects (which it will), it will not go well for us.

[redpoint5]

My guess is we will begin engineering humans within the next couple hundred years. Since we're largely circumventing natural selection, the only way to prevent a weakening/diseased population is to select out the unhealthy traits and select in the healthy ones.

When reproduction becomes an engineering, and hence conscious decision, that will greatly slow, if not reverse population growth. We'll have the opposite problem of overpopulation.

I expect things to play out that way because that's what humans do; engineer solutions to problems rather than let nature select for them.

My dad and I both have bad backs (probably genetic). My guess is I'd have died at 30 if we were in caveman times. I was incapacitated for 2 months and lost 25 pounds. Cavepeople don't have 25 pounds to spare.

[freebeard]

I have lived on the 'eve of destruction' my whole life.

Over the years, my paranoia expanded like a bubble, but became more diffuse. Now I'm a little bit worried about everything.

for example, my appendix ruptured three years ago. Prior to the twentieth century, I would be dead--

I was incapacitated for 2 months and lost 25 pounds.

I lost 2 months and 25lbs to appendicitis when I was 14. As soon as I could walk I got up and got my grade school diploma, six feet tall and 125lb.

I don't think health care is the biggest danger. It's pets, sports* and religion.

*Especially golf.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Hash-tag sexstrike will be the death of us all! (not)

The Charlemagne Event was 10x the Carrington Event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

The conjecture is that the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet rather than infrared. The test would be a pinhole mask that only exposes the interior of a sunspot.

Radio emission dovetails to a specific Kelvin temperature.'Reading' the radio frequency of the sunspot should reveal its actual temperature,and from that,where it would lie along the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.
In 1945,Scott and Pawsey,at the Radiophysics Laboratory,Australia,discovered radio emission from the Sun,at 15-million degrees K.Today's Parker Probe may be able to parse out some of these details.It will be as close as 4-million miles from the Sun.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Grant-53

Each prediction is based upon a set of assumptions. it is an extrapolation of known data and perceived trends. Natural systems tend to self regulate. People tend to make substitutions when one product no longer is viable. I have lived on the 'eve of destruction' my whole life. Without a definite Pareto diagram of the factors influencing weather and climate or per-capital resource production there is little certainty of making precise predictions more than five years into the future. We can take prudent steps to minimize waste heat and conserve farm and forest land. I suspect these are root issues.

My impression from some of the climate scientists,is that 'prudent' has worked out for us,since 1957.With the best,high-resolution numerical models,there's a high probability that we're already into,non-linear,amplifying,self-reinforcing feedback loops,which will push us beyond irreversible thresholds, unless we not only cease to emit anthropogenic greenhouse gases,but remove some of the gases which are already in the atmosphere.
Today,Australia is electing a new prime minister.The number-one item on their political agenda is climate change.We might want to follow their lead.
Precise prediction has been the enemy of the good.Shareholders for Oxidation have taken on the same complexion as Sacklers for Oxycontin.