The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Just-so story - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an unverifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation.

SSP1 and SSP5 envision relatively optimistic trends for human development, with “substantial investments in education and health, rapid economic growth, and well-functioning institutions”. They differ in that SSP5 assumes this will be driven by an energy-intensive, fossil fuel-based economy, while in SSP1 there is an increasing shift toward sustainable practices.

I perceive a different differing.

Driven by an increasing commitment to achieving development goals, inequality is reduced both across and within countries.

This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development.

"Equality, I spoke the word as if a wedding vow. But I was so much older then I'm younger than that now."
____________

We are already fracking the source rock and drilling in the deep ocean. After this there is nothing left.

Have patience. It will be replenished by bacteria deep in the hot rocks underfoot.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

"Of course there are alternative forms of energy that are becoming more efficient and affordable every year, and that’s a good thing. But ironically the alternative energy sector as it now exists relies entirely on fossil fuels. We need to recognize that fossil fuels are essential in the whole supply chain of a windmill or a solar panel, in mining the raw materials, shipping them, manufacturing them, transporting the manufactured products, even the advertising and government subsidies – will this process still be affordable when the Industrial Revolution reaches the bottom of the barrel? The last two hundred years are not representative of the life of our species. They were built on a foundation that is not sustainable, and when it crumbles, our capacity for innovation may need to be replaced by our capacity for renovation. Old technologies that were designed with the limits of economics and planetary sustainability in mind will once again become valuable, and our lives will have to change drastically as a result, All of the sane reforms I and others write about will become, maybe not inevitable, but certainly desirable options once we view the world and ourselves without the distortion of the fossil-fuel lottery pay-out. Some day soon we will have to go back to living on our yearly income. We will still be inventive when that day comes, but our inventions may look more like clever PTO shafts on horse-drawn farm equipment and less like space travel."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-of-something/

I'm reading 'Zombie Economics' right now.The author,so far,is advocating for a return to the John Maynard Kenesian model,and sights evidence on top of evidence to illustrate what economists are still promoting,which already caused a near-miss with a total global economic meltdown in 2008.
It looks like the United States will reach failed-state status,unless we adopt an economic system which mirrors China,India,Japan,Korea,a few others.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

You are planning on living past 2100? Asia and India have done a good job educating and empowering women that two is enough and is only forecast to add another billion. Africa is set to triple in population over 80 years and add another 3 billion.
.
.

.
.

No, I expect Africa population growth to decline faster than predicted due to cultural and technological changes. There is a trickle down effect in standard of living as technology improves. Our homeless have cell phones, for instance. As Africans increasingly connect with the outside world, their culture and values will change.

Of course, I'm mindful of your prediction of decreasing per-capita wealth/resources, and that would depress the effects of change, so there's still risk of a slowing or halting of development in poor countries.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

Ha...!!!

So much for open and freely shareing research so it can be duplicated and verified by others.

He had 8 years to produce the data.



MICHAEL MANN REFUSES TO PRODUCE DATA, LOSES CASE

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...loses-case.php


More info here.


https://principia-scientific.org/bre...imate-lawsuit/







>

I've read some of the debate papers on this issue.I believe that the decision was,that Mann's data is his own private property,and he,nor anyone else are obliged to share it with anyone,and especially special-interest,hired prostitute,pretend-scientists who'd only attempt to use it for skeptic/contrarian/denier propaganda,like Balliunas,Soon,Michaels,Singer,Balling,Idso,Graybi ll,Knappenberger,Davis,Frauenfeld,McKitrick,McInty re,Happer Kueter,Robinson,etc. have done.
They're not worthy of the data.Aiding and abetting the enemy is a capital crime.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Just about every new SSP prediction scenario that just came out that are used by climate scientists to model climate change shows more coal and natural gas than rebuildable energy in 2100. And higher total energy consumption.
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...ming-scenario/
.
.

.
.

I don't know what the point is?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Easier to see chart of predicted energy by source for the different Shared Socio-Economic Pathways that the scientists are now using for the updated climate change models. Is there really that much recoverable oil left? 120 million barrels a day for the next 80 years and beyond? We are already fracking the source rock and drilling in the deep ocean. After this there is nothing left.
.
SSP1 predicts 3C warming and SSP5, 5C and higher beyond 2100
.

.
.
They are more optimistic than the UN (predicts 10.5 billion peak) on controlling the peak population. Our current debt/ growth/ inequality based economic system requires constant 3% growth of GPD in order to create "jobs" for full employment. This results in a doubling of GDP every 25 years and would result in nearly the level which is shown in SSP5. Is it really possible to see the size of the human endeavor as 8 times bigger than today in 75 years given the constraints of raw material throughput and declining resource grades?
.
.

.
.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...lCGuCzMyA2UygQ
.

There's as much in the ground as we've burned so far.How long it would last,would be a function of end-use efficiency.There's also synfuels,which could be derived from Coal,bitumin,shale, or any other type of hydrocarbon (at a cost),perhaps they're allowing for that.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I don't know what the point is?

These are the newest official possible inputs representing the emissions side for advanced climate Models. The SSP2 is intended to replace the previous "business as usual model". The link provides further information on each possibility.

[redpoint5]

I'm curious, aside from indirect anthropogenic increases in CO2 emissions, how many ppm is directly attributable from burning fossil fuels to date? That should be easily calculable if we know relatively accurately how much of various fossil fuels have been burned.

I imagine the question is less straightforward since the ocean absorbs something like 2/3 of the CO2.

...just found this too, though I don't know what the 44/12 rule is. Ocean absorption I mentioned?

the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using our 44 over 12 rule, this means 1ppm = 7.81 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide.

One source says humans release 36 gigatonnes per year.

This graphic is interesting:

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No, I expect Africa population growth to decline faster than predicted due to cultural and technological changes. There is a trickle down effect in standard of living as technology improves. Our homeless have cell phones, for instance. As Africans increasingly connect with the outside world, their culture and values will change.

Of course, I'm mindful of your prediction of decreasing per-capita wealth/resources, and that would depress the effects of change, so there's still risk of a slowing or halting of development in poor countries.

They can have El Nino issues.The 1997-98 storm gave 'em tens of thousands of cholera cases.Tens of thousands of malaria cases.They had 89,000 Rift Valley Fever cases.Lots of parasites.Ebola is back right now.
Their glaciers are pretty much toast,so their long-term water storage is gone.
Last year,one of their South African major cities,Capetown, was within weeks of running their last water reservoir dry.
As a continent,they've been in a 5,000-year drought since 3,000 BC,when the African Humid Period ended.Lots of marginalized people.
In 1999,300,000 faced starvation in Dodoma Region from drought.
The Akkadian Empire collapsed in 2,200 BC after a 300-year drought.
All the Tibetan Plateau glaciers will be gone by 2100. There won't be an Indus,Brahmaputra,or Ganges Rivers,with nothing but drought in between monsoons.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

These are the newest official possible inputs representing the emissions side for advanced climate Models. The SSP2 is intended to replace the previous "business as usual model". The link provides further information on each possibility.

Okay,thanks! These are just talking points for policymakers? Nothings set in concrete?