The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Interesting the graph predicts population max around 2040. My prediction based on nothing but speculation was 2050.

Anyone see Black Mirror season 5 episode 1? That is a main reason I could see population dwindling sooner rather than later. Well, not the part that made things weird and awkward, but the general tendency for us to develop technologies to reward pleasure centers without having accomplished anything to justify that reward. Making children is the outcome of one such process of reward seeking behavior, yet we know how to fulfill that without the resulting children.

Decline in population growth will happen at an increasing rate as technology is adopted at an increasing rate.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Whatever. I have been hearing the same dooms day crap for 25 years and we always have, 5, 10, 12 years ect and the world ends.

It goes back as far as Noah. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=noah+fire+next+time


hardware.slashdot.org/story/.../startup-aims-to-tackle-grid-storage-problem-with-new-porous-silicon-battery

New submitter symgym writes:

Recently out of stealth mode is a new battery technology that's printed on silicon wafers (36 million "micro-batteries" machined into 12-inch silicon wafers). It can scale from small devices to large-scale grid storage and promises four times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries for half the price. There should also be no issues with fires caused by dendrite formation.....
Hallquist also notes that the new batteries are 100% recyclable. "At the end of the life of this product, you bring the wafers back in, you clean the wafer off, you reclaim the lithium and other materials. And it's essentially brand new. So we're 100 percent recyclable."

"Hallquist says the battery banks that Cross Border Power plans to sell to utility companies as soon as next year will be installed in standard computer server racks," reports IEEE Spectrum. "One shipping container worth of those racks (totaling 40 racks in all) will offer 4 megawatts (MW) of battery storage capacity, she says. Contrast this, she adds, to a comparable set of rack-storage lithium ion batteries which would typically only yield 1 MW in a shipping container."

edit:
Rageholic has a new post up on Youtube, What We Can Learn From Cicero

Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century
.—believing that personal gain is made by crushing others
.—worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected
.—insisting that the thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it
.—refusing to set aside trivial preferences
.—neglecting development and refinement of the mind
.—and finally attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do

Marcus Tullius Cicero

I've watched the rest. When you wonder how he can rant that fast without spitting, be aware it's all scripted and read out.

...I must now quote the man himself "To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child."
.I'm Razörfist
ave Cicero

edit:
redpoint5 — I just saw your post. Black Mirror is behind a paywall for me, but I remember Dr. Skinner's pigeons.

eightytwentyinvestor.com/.../a-pigeon-from-the-1950s-has-the-answer-to-your-facebook-addiction/

[oil pan 4]

The climate changes and man has an impact.
How is that denial?
That's acceptance.

[freebeard]

How is that denial?
That's acceptance.

I accept your denial. Dare you deny my acceptance?

Just remember, 'past performance does not guarantee future results'.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Forest fires happen every year, and if left alone the same amount of carbon gets trapped by trees growing in clearances caused by fires in the previous years. So in essence forest fires do not add to the carbon in the atmosphere.

Unless the fires are used to clear land for other purposes, as sadly happens on a large scale. Then the land won't recapture the same amount of carbon in the coming years.
But that carbon addition is caused by human activity and should be accounted as such.

So if half the forest fires are to clear land, 4B of CO2 should be added to the 45B tally for human activuity, and the other 4B can be wiped as it is compensated by reforestation.

Right - and when trees die and the rot - they release the carbon anyway. So, overall natural wildfires do not add carbon to the air. And the natural cycling of the carbon is the same.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Only 4% of Americans believe climate change, the environment and pollution are the most important problem.
It's actually up form 3%.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/mo...t-problem.aspx
So it's nearly a dead issue.

Facts are still facts; whether or not some humans "believe" them. Opinions about facts - don't change the facts.

And your number is not credible.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My quick search showed an average of 8B tons of CO2 emitted in forest fires each year vs 45B tons released by human activity.

What is the source that shows 15x all of earth's forests worth of CO2 is emitted by humans each year? That doesn't pass my sniff test.

The source is 'Too Smart for Our Own Good,' by Craig Dilworth.Dilworth gives fossil-fuel consumption as a function of burning 'world forest equivalents' (wfe).It's based upon the average-mean carbon stored in a unit area of 100-year-old forest,at total global forest area.
The carbon dioxide,alone,from combusting coal,petroleum,and natural gas is equivalent to burning Earth's entire forest cover fifteen times,each year.
If viewed from space,the fire would cover more than the entire surface of Earth.A forest fire as large as all the land and all the water.
Anyone can go online and see images of Earth's atmosphere,resolved into a sphere,orbiting next to the planet.(also the all the water). When you realize how tiny the atmosphere is,when compared to Earth itself,it really drives home the amount of 'invisible' smoke we produce annually.
And this does not include anthropogenic water vapor,Methane,nitrous oxide,ozone,chloroflourocarbons,hydrochloroflouroc arbons, perchlorocarbons,sulfur hexaflouride,carbon monoxide,oxides of nitrogen,and non-methane volatile organic compounds.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Not a comedian. A sociological researcher/scientist tarred with the same brush as Wilhem Reich. I have no opinion on who the moron is in this situation.

How do you quantify such a thing? You take the most extensive data sets available for research and map it globally, over time, at a finer granularity than anyone else has attempted.

Then you offer a trend analysis that matches the historical record and suffer ad hominem attacks. If your getting flak you know you're over the target.



Else you monitor open sources and know everything they know, by their actions. 'Oficialdom' is reduced in the current security environment to passing communications in the clear, on 8chan.

The choice to know will be yours.

*so we take the entire spectrum of human potential and reduce it to 60+ frequencies.
*and since we can't predict what any individual will do on any given day,it's quite obvious that we can predict what a group will do,in a fluid environment.
*then you take this incomplete representation,in a spatial geographic distribution,over some time series
*input this 'interpretation' into some 'model'
*and the output mirrors reality?
*and you have no a priori knowledge of sub rosa drivers operating out of view,and expect a representation of reality?
At best,you'd get a story.
*state secrets would not avail themselves in the public domain until perhaps many generations has passed,and the original players were already long worm food,if at all.
*And who's historical account? New information surfaces all the time.
*an observer might devine a correlation,mistaking it for causality which doesn't actually exist.
My dog thought that dog food came from the sky.How else could it have got into the bowl?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Only 4% of Americans believe climate change, the environment and pollution are the most important problem.
It's actually up form 3%.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/mo...t-problem.aspx
So it's nearly a dead issue.

It's not surprising.The politicos on commercial TV will discuss polls,and interviews with voters,and lately,all they hear about is concerns over immigration,sexual discrimination,abortion,healthcare,and jobs.Climate change doesn't seem to rate.
It's a terrific success story for the fossil-fuel industry's decades-old disinformation campaign.Spend a few million,get a few billion back.What a slot machine!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Whatever. I have been hearing the same dooms day crap for 25 years and we always have, 5, 10, 12 years ect and the world ends.
Can't believe people still fall for this crap even it's only 4%.

Looks like the world ends for 151,600 humans a day.
For the Guy R. McPhersons of the world,they seem to have been granted an exclusive preview and itinerary for the end time.As a conservation biologist,I'm unsure that the curriculum for that PhD would provide the necessary tools for the prognostications that so easily roll off their tongues.
No other 'scientists' that I know,would presume such predictive powers.
I'm hearing that we're given 30-years to load-shed,increase efficiencies,transition off fossil-fuel combustion,like Exxon Corporation chief,Henry Shaw spoke of in 1980.
Like New Zealand's Prime Minister,Jacinda Ardern said,'No one is saying,'we're going to turn off the taps overnight,' What they're saying is,'This is what the future looks like.'