The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

900-GW average production for the USA would be a good start and would get us close if we had a perfect electrification of everything to go with it. But you stated that we needed "900-GW capacity" of rebuildables when in fact if we want to average 900-GW of power, then we actually need 3-TW of nameplate capacity built out.
.
This is constantly misstated in the media and leads to misrepresenting the progress of the transition and the pricing by a factor of 3 (by a factor of 6 for solar in my area).

I agree in spirit,with the caveat that,only if present technology was frozen,both at the supply side,and load side,and we all agreed that presently,we were looking at a capacity factor of 30%,we'd need,I'm thinking,like you, 3.0-TW of installed capacity,to make it to 0.9-TW of load.
Wysession felt that there would be ongoing technological evolution,with increased efficiencies (load avoidance) and increased efficiencies of conversion efficiency (demand side),as well as capacity factor (like we see the GE's 63% offshore deepwater wind).
Had we built passive solar since 1973,we could throw over $49-billion a year at renewables and never see it in the pocketbook.That's 33.7-GW/year without an extra penny.By 2026,wind alone would exceed the entire electric load for 2014.By 2043 we'd be at over 1-TW.Doing nothing else.And with no improvements.
I feel like the best and the brightest are going to attack the problem from every conceivable direction.We've thrown hundreds of billions of tax dollars at fossil-fuel and nuclear power R&D already.Nobody squealed.Perhaps we wouldn't notice some more,towards renewables.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

"Climate crisis" needs to be better defined. What are the measures and thresholds that constitute a crisis? Is it a crisis if some people are positively affected while others are negatively affected?

As I've mentioned before, some research suggests we'll overall continue to prosper due to global warming until sometime around 2080, at which point further warming will be a net negative.

So, if we're currently in a warming crisis, at what point did it begin, and how do we know it began then?

The models are providing better resolution trend lines which diverge from the natural variations recorded in the proxy data.
The various disciplines,based upon what they're witnessing first hand,and the model projections (and probabilities),compared to what happened in Earth's past,paint an overall picture of change,the likes of which have never been experienced naturally.
There are no species on Earth that have evolutionarily-selected for the rapid changes that are predicted.We haven't engineered for what's in store.
The impacts will affect:terrestrial food supply,water supplies,heat,forest kill,the entire marine food chain,ocean Dead Zones, coral reef death,flooding,drought,extreme weather events,rapid-intensifying storms,disease,species extinction amplification,loss of habitat,massive methane discharge,extreme economic losses,climate refugees,civil war,etc..
There will be some local benefits,and regional benefits,depending.
I've seen nothing to suggest that we'll have a picnic between now and 2080.
It was David Keeling,at the Mauna Loa,Hawaii Observatory who measured the trend for atmospheric carbon dioxide going off the chart in the 1950s.
We've gone from 280 ppmv carbon dioxide,to over 407 ppmv.Methane has increased for 715 ppmb,to over 1800 ppmb.Methane is 20-to-83-times more potent that carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.When it biodegrades,it becomes carbon dioxide.
We will continue to warm for 1,000-years,and the ocean will be 75-100-feet above current levels,if we stop emissions today.
There's more to say,but it really requires book reading.You can't turn it into sound-bites.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

We'd all probably agree that we're collectively better off now than during the most brutal part of the last ice age, so my question is, if we've continuously been warming since then, and considering humanity prospered due to that warming, at which date in recent history did humanity collectively begin suffering (more suffering than benefiting) from the warming?

In other words, you can't claim a current crisis unless we can define that humanity has collectively been worse off. Otherwise, it's just unfavorable weather for some unfortunate people, not to downplay their personal misfortune.

As best as I can understand the situation, we're doing great, but have a potential climate crisis on the horizon, with certain people already suffering negative consequences of climate change, and others prospering.

I understand that acting now to slow climate change makes sense. That said, I don't think it's the problem of our generations. We're doing things right now that directly harm people that we're more capable of solving. Climate change will be the problem of a future generation assuming we figure out how to avoid going from cold war to warm war.

All these adjectives are subjective and not of high enough precision for which to make any kind of evaluation.You could argue human factors.Physiological limits.We'd have to look at temporal and spatial distributions.
Ice Age people had complete lives.They had their culture,their gods,their narratives.In their short lives they may of had more 'life' than we moderns.Whatever they had was 'normal' to their environment.There would nothing with which to draw a comparison.
You may argue the benefit of cheap corporate bananas,while survivors of the United Fruit Company's Santa Marta Plantation machine gun massacre have a different take on it.
When President George W.Bush's grandfather brokered the deal to sell 500-tons of lead -tetraethyl to Adolf Hitler,it meant that the Luftwaffe would be able to shoot my uncle L.R. out of the sky,machine- gun him as he fought hypothermia floating in the English Channel,them bomb the hospital out from around him in England.
We need to be mindful or our perspectives.
In all the time I've participated on this thread,you've never once demonstrated that you've ever actually looked into the actual science of climate change.Perhaps you've always expected others to do the heavy lifting.
You fly into Florida on your biz-jet,spewing an ocean of greenhouse gases,play 18-holes at Mara Lago,then return to whatever rock you crawled out from under.When the Guatemalan cane cutter dies of heat death from your carbon dioxide,the crops fail,and the family survivors are driven to migrate to America,looking for a future,you put up a wall to punish them even more. Real Christian!
Climate change is a problem right now.It's not something you kick down the road.I don't think the world will forgive us our prosperity.I don't see anything great.

[freebeard]

I suppose that the issue of lack of command and control and unregulated commerce in a world of 7.5-billion uneducated consumers will be our coup de grace.

At that point I thought "Adam Smith', but you addresses that. I guess I'd point out that the Founding Fathers only had muskets, but today we have Satoshi Nakamoto's blockchain.

Wysession felt that there would be ongoing technological evolution,with increased efficiencies (load avoidance) and increased efficiencies of conversion efficiency (demand side),as well as capacity factor (like we see the GE's 63% offshore deepwater wind).

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=software+defined+electricity

Had we built passive solar since 1973...

...since the 1930s? Context of '1930s - 1940s: Florida Experiences Brief Boom in Solar Water Heater Sales, Ended by Aggressive Marketing Campaign by Electric Company'

1930s - 1940s: Florida Experiences Brief Boom in Solar Water Heater Sales, Ended by Aggressive Marketing Campaign by Electric Company

By the 1930s, the solar water heater industry is essentially killed off in California by discoveries of huge natural gas reserves in the Los Angeles basin. William Bailey, who has grown rich selling his solar-powered water heaters (see 1909-1918), adapts his design for a thermostatically-controlled gas water heater. His Day and Night Solar Water Heater does quite well in Florida, where a building boom has brought in an influx of new residents, many of whom have to pay high rates for hot water. Florida’s semi-tropical climate and its housing boom creates an excellent selling environment for Bailey’s “hybrid” water heater. By 1941, over half of Florida residents heat their water with solar or solar-gas heaters. However, declining energy rates after World War II combined with an aggressive effort by Florida Power and Light to increase electrical consumption by offering electric water heaters at bargain prices brings the state’s solar water heater industry to its knees. [California Solar Center, 2001]

Another example of oppression by Big AC?

edit:

Ice Age people had complete lives.They had their culture,their gods,their narratives.In their short lives they may of had more 'life' than we moderns.Whatever they had was 'normal' to their environment.There would nothing with which to draw a comparison.

They built to last. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=eye+of+afric&ia=web

That blue stuff is salt. The original Mud Flood, now 2000ft in the air.

You fly into Florida on your biz-jet,spewing an ocean of greenhouse gases,play 18-holes at Mara Lago,then return to whatever rock you crawled out from under.

redpoint5 has played golf at 'Mara Lego'?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm not entirely opposed to a monarchy. It's sort of democratically established in that a corrupt monarch will eventually be overthrown. Possibly an easier problem to solve than a corrupt democracy as there's a singular problem to resolve.

Wealthy men don't need a strong central government because they have wealth (and guns) to protect them. Heck, I don't require police to keep me safe. They are last responders, not first responders. They'll write the reports after the fact. It seems the only time police are willing to enter a dangerous situation is when they've had 2 weeks to assemble several hundred heavily armed swat members, and generally they are the ones bringing the violence to what was previously a peaceful place.

The 2nd amendment wasn't to ensure people had the right to own muskets; it was to ensure the people could adequately defend their country and their land. It's explicitly stating what we all know is a natural right; to defend yourself against threat. As technology progressed, muskets were no longer sufficient as a defensive weapon.

I'm sure Exxon-Mobil shareholders will be thrilled that the US Seventh Fleet will no longer safeguard supertanker shipments from the Middle East.Or maintain an interstate highway system, airports, harbors,dams,levees,berms,food inspections,drugs,drinking water,building materials.And that pesky Pentagon,it's obviously a bad idea.Armed Forces,FCC.FBI.CIA.NRO.NSA.National laboratories.US Mint.Yucca Mountain.Pantex Plant.NOAA.FAA.NASA.Internet.Big Inch.Little inch.Alaska.Hawaii.Puerto Rico.Gadsden Purchase.Louisiana Purchase.Purchase.Texas.NORAD.RAND Corp.Transcontinental Railroad.
A 'right' would be something bestowed.Evolution would have selected for a survival instinct.

[redpoint5]

I thought you were speaking in terms of domestic protection. The same concept applies though; that if there was not a government protecting assets, that private business would fund their own protection (and often do). It would simply be reflected in the price of the goods.

You're correct that evolution dictates what is a right. Bears have the right to bear claws, for instance. Our claws are more effective.

[freebeard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Inch for those following along at home.

A 'right' would be something bestowed.Evolution would have selected for a survival instinct.

A privilege can be bestowed. A right is inalienable.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

A privilege can be bestowed. A right is inalienable.

Inalienable and intrinsic to being.

[NeilBlanchard]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JbzypWJk64

[freebeard]

Whither Port Royal?

Meanwhile, Atlantis is 2000ft in the air. I'll point to a search result rather than the Bright Insight channel because it platforms the debunkers. Fair and balanced.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...brigth+insight

edit:
Okay, so I watched MrAntiVision. Bless his heart, if only he could propose a title and then produce a video that addresses it.

2nd edit:
Well MaXerxo debunks Bright Insight by ignoring the argument and speculating on population densities.

Is there any support for the argument that it was a sinking island rather than a Mud Flood?