The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

Barring other 'drivers',as Malthus spoke of long ago,it's going to be the food supply which limits population.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

Perhaps you be interested in this: www.fao.org: 3. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING BIOMASS DENSITY FROM EXISTING DATA

Or this: https://www.quora.com/Does-hemp-prod...-would-be-good

• According to Hemp Global Solutions, each ton of hemp grown represents 1.63 tons of CO2 absorption.[1]And according to the Great Book of Hemp, an average acre of hemp will yield 5–10 tons of dried stalk.
• A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.

But these statistics aren’t considering the other benefits of using hemp compared to trees. Since you can quickly grow hemp, whereas it takes decades for trees to fully grow, you can replace many applications of trees with hemp (i.e. paper, composites, fuel, etc).

Hemp paper can be recycled up to eight times.

...The politicos on commercial TV...

Well, there's your problem. Vested interests gonna be invested. Try open sources.

Netflix just lost $17 Billion in 24hrs.

*so ...
*and...
*then...
*input...
*and...
*and...
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.

At best stories are all we can comprehend. It's in our nature. Captial-S Science is a story is it not?

State secrets don't trump open source. Haven't you noticed? We live in an age of big data and weaponized autism.

My dog thought that dog food came from the sky.How else could it have got into the bowl?

Why don't you have an intellectual discussion with the dog, since you want to know?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Perhaps you be interested in this: www.fao.org: 3. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING BIOMASS DENSITY FROM EXISTING DATA

Or this: https://www.quora.com/Does-hemp-prod...-would-be-good

Hemp paper can be recycled up to eight times.

Well, there's your problem. Vested interests gonna be invested. Try open sources.

Netflix just lost $17 Billion in 24hrs.


At best stories are all we can comprehend. It's in our nature. Captial-S Science is a story is it not?

State secrets don't trump open source. Haven't you noticed? We live in an age of big data and weaponized autism.

Why don't you have an intellectual discussion with the dog, since you want to know?

*I'm gonna stick with trees.It's a known quantity which may be easier for the general population to visualize.
*I've not a lot of interest in hemp.My neighbors have that one rangled.I hear it's a $350-billion/year global industry,trending towards corporate monopolization.
*without internet access at home,open sourcing isn't going to happen.
*Some communications are 'factual.' Some topics would be difficult to quantify,mathematicize,impossible for 'science.'
*Capital-S science,best I can tell off the cuff,would come down to a theory,which was based upon testing of a hypothesis,the results of which reproducible by any other investigator, yielding the same result,represented as a degree of probability.Perhaps a technical narrative would be more appropriate than a story.
*in climate change,Naomi Oreskes et al. would explain that we'd be looking at an open system and 'verification' of a model would be an oxymoron,as an open system model cannot by definition,be verified.Especially in the arena of public policy.Model results could only guide the debate.This is a theme that the 'denial' community has ran with.
*The dog analogy comes courtesy of Franz Kafka.

[freebeard]

*I'm gonna stick with trees.

You'll want to pass on https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/

Perhaps a technical narrative would be more appropriate than a story.

Some stories are more credible.

...an open system model cannot by definition,be verified.Especially in the arena of public policy.Model results could only guide the debate.

Some (Scott Adams) argue that facts are used post facto to justify the persuasion that is the real determinant.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

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!

It rates. Just at 3 or 4 percent.
The other thing I'm surprised no one brought up is a poll say showing how many people say "global warming is important", one of those polls where people can select multiple items. Usually around 50% say it's important.
But of those roughly 50% even the majority of them don't want to spend more than $10 per month or $100 per year or inconvenience them selves an any way to fix it.
The only conclusion we can possibly draw is its just not that important to the vast majority of Americans.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The only conclusion we can possibly draw is its just not that important to the vast majority of Americans.

Outside of ball-chasing, reproducing, and driving, damn little is.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

You'll want to pass on https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/


Some stories are more credible.


Some (Scott Adams) argue that facts are used post facto to justify the persuasion that is the real determinant.

If energy policy is the actual issue,and Congress sets policy,then if we're going to continue as a rule-of-law nation, persuasion is all we have.
'People must be controlled by manipulating their [instincts and emotions] rather than by changing their reasonings.This is a fact of which politicians have always made use when they have persuaded their constituents by appealing to their sentiments,rather than employing [reasoning],which would never be listened to or at least never prove effective for moving the crowds.'
Richard Worthington

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It rates. Just at 3 or 4 percent.
The other thing I'm surprised no one brought up is a poll say showing how many people say "global warming is important", one of those polls where people can select multiple items. Usually around 50% say it's important.
But of those roughly 50% even the majority of them don't want to spend more than $10 per month or $100 per year or inconvenience them selves an any way to fix it.
The only conclusion we can possibly draw is its just not that important to the vast majority of Americans.

I don't have the source with me,but Harvard did a poll which indicated that climate change was important to most Americans.But they don't have any confidence that Congress can/will do anything about it.
Structurally,there's no physical or technological barrier to solving climate change,but it appears that most Americans lack the mental facility to realize that every time they 'vote' for fossil-fuels with their own dollars,they're sending a very clear message to the market,to just keep doing what they've always done.The solution is hiding in plain sight.
'I love humanity.It's people I can't stand.' Mark Twain

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Outside of ball-chasing, reproducing, and driving, damn little is.

'All Americans want to do,is drink Coke and watch baseball.' Averell Harriman

[aerohead]

June,2019 was the warmest June in recorded history.
Europe set some heat records last week,and they are into their second heat- wave,from the Saharan region.Bordeaux,France is forecast to hit 41-C (105-F).The British and Germans are in for some cooking as well.July is on track for being another,'warmest on record'.Nine died in the US heat -wave over the 3-day weekend period.
Love those solar grand minimums!
PS, none of the other planets have warmed.