The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So the key to stemming global warming is to measure with Mercury thermometers. :P

I'm pretty well convinced burning fossil fuels is most responsible for the increased CO2 levels. As I've said before, it doesn't matter the cause though, as what to do about something has little to nothing to do with cause, and more to do with what will happen if you don't respond to the threat. In other words, if solar irregularity were causing the majority of warming and it posed enough of a threat, we should be responding to that threat just as much as if any other thing were causing warming. If long-term well-being depends on the average temperature being within a certain range, we need to respond reasonably to keep it within that range. Cause is meaningless insofar as if we should act.

If a tree is falling in your direction, the cause is irrelevant. The only relevant consideration is what direction and what speed is an appropriate response. In my view, this is the relevant and interesting discussion. Cause doesn't matter. What can be done and what SHOULD be done in response to change?

Some have advanced ideas about the can and should.What appears to be the issue,is the implications of following a correcting course of action.Our economy has been predicated on expansion of markets,expansion of consumption,expansion of credit,slow,incremental change,so as not to frighten Wall St..It's only very recently that the spectre of themes like deconstruction,and contraction has reared its ugly head.The Business Round Table wants to do something,and by showing a united front,no single entity can be singled out as a ne'er-do-well.It's a beginning at the CEO level.
I'd like to drive to Hawaii one day in a long-range EV.We'll need a lot more plastic in the Pacific in order for that to happen.So we need to stop burning fuel so much and turn it into durable highway materials.Drill baby drill,without the burn-baby-burn!

[freebeard]

Solar forcing constitutes ten percent that of anthopogenic forcing.It's virtually meaningless.

So what you're saying is...

Anthopogenic forcing is the only thing staving off an Ice Age?

Here's you're climate change right here. The Sahara Desert was created in as little as 100 years six thousand years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0_Of0WGkEs

Milankovitch cycles or what?

[redpoint5]

I'm in agreement that rates of anything are unsustainable, including growth rates, whether that's GDP, population, etc. It is political suicide to suggest not even a decline in consumption (GDP), but even holding steady. After all, who would be excited to work at a place and never receive a pay raise?

We get out of bed in the morning because of the prospect of improving our position in the world, or at least making our situation less bad. Most of us don't get out of bed to merely maintain our position, or to consciously not exceed current consumer ability.

Governments rely on the will of the people, so there's no such thing as a political faction that can rise to power and exert their will against the will of the people for any long period of time. There's also zero chance they can do that without being corrupt themselves.

Any solutions then must fit within the basic instincts of humanity, as all others are doomed to failure. If we were somehow able to accept zero economic growth and a roughly equal distribution of resources, we'd largely eliminate technological innovation, which itself can provide solutions to problems.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

So what you're saying is...

Anthopogenic forcing is the only thing staving off an Ice Age?

Here's you're climate change right here. The Sahara Desert was created in as little as 100 years six thousand years ago:

Milankovitch cycles or what?

No kiddin'!
There was a methane dip and flourine spike around 6400 BC,with a large,abrupt hydrological change in the tropics.And apparently,the tropics drive climate change.They've driven all four of the last ice ages.
The African Humid Period ended around 3,000 BC,entering into perpetual drought which extends to today.
All interglacials and glacials have been driven by precession of the equinox,superimposed on the 100,000-year,Milankovitch orbital eccentricity cycle,when the solstice occurred during perihelion.It's a inverse-square law effect.
There's also a 1,500-year cycle which rides along which also has to do with insolation,although that's a missing puzzle piece for me so far.
Coolings trend slowly,while warmings can be extremely abrupt,so your 100-year value seems very plausible.I don't have that data point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Younger Dryas ended precisely 11,640-years ago.Between then and 11,000-years ago,the Wisconsinan/W'u'rm glacial had ended,beginning the Holocene.
The Last Glacial Maximum was at 18,000-years ago.On average,we wouldn't expect to be in a new glacial maximum for another 82,000-years.
Sea-level and temperature was steady until 1880,as we moved into the Anthropocene,and geologically,it's unprecedented.What we've done to the environment has never happened before.
We could see an additional 10-F by 2100,and 80-feet of sea-level rise.It's happened before and that's why our greenhouse gases are freaking out the climatologists.
As to staving off an ice age,I'm not qualified to take that on.All we know is,that the last time there was this much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,Earth was this warm and the oceans were a lot higher.
Someone has said that a 2-degree warming will end the ice sheets.But they don't say whether its 2F or 2C.The 'climate sensitivity' of Earth is 2.7-C (4.8-F) for a 560ppmv 'doubling' of carbon dioxide,or it's equivalent.We're at around 411 ppmv today.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm in agreement that rates of anything are unsustainable, including growth rates, whether that's GDP, population, etc. It is political suicide to suggest not even a decline in consumption (GDP), but even holding steady. After all, who would be excited to work at a place and never receive a pay raise?

We get out of bed in the morning because of the prospect of improving our position in the world, or at least making our situation less bad. Most of us don't get out of bed to merely maintain our position, or to consciously not exceed current consumer ability.

Governments rely on the will of the people, so there's no such thing as a political faction that can rise to power and exert their will against the will of the people for any long period of time. There's also zero chance they can do that without being corrupt themselves.

Any solutions then must fit within the basic instincts of humanity, as all others are doomed to failure. If we were somehow able to accept zero economic growth and a roughly equal distribution of resources, we'd largely eliminate technological innovation, which itself can provide solutions to problems.

They may have to fabricate a catalyzing event,like 'Wag the Dog', which brings everyone together,putting petty difference aside,for the duration of whatever transition exercise they choose.We see it done in wartime.
The 1951 motion picture,'The Day the Earth Stood Still' would be a perfect metaphor for a catalyst.Everyone focuses on a common goal until it's over,then we can get back to petty squabbling when its behind us.
I don't see why the people who already thrive on business couldn't thrive in new endeavors.Since the fossil-fuels folks brought us all to this party,we might want to enlist them in whatever new enterprise we selected.They obviously know how to get things done.They can build new empires around renewables while they keep providing precious synthetics and durable,hydrocarbon-based intermediates,finished stocks,as well as manufacturing if they like.I'm kinda optimistic somehow.
Fill the Pacific with durable plastics and I'll drive their EVs to Hawaii,charged with their solar panels,wind turbines,thorium reactors,whatever.

[redpoint5]

I don't know what made me think of this OT thing, but ever notice how there's a common theme in movies where they say that talking is wasting oxygen? Metabolic rate determines oxygen consumption, not how quickly air moves into or out of the lungs.

Perhaps I was thinking in terms of the Earth metabolic rate?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

They may have to fabricate a catalyzing event,like 'Wag the Dog', which brings everyone together,putting petty difference aside,for the duration of whatever transition exercise they choose.We see it done in wartime.
The 1951 motion picture,'The Day the Earth Stood Still' would be a perfect metaphor for a catalyst.Everyone focuses on a common goal until it's over,then we can get back to petty squabbling when its behind us.
I don't see why the people who already thrive on business couldn't thrive in new endeavors.Since the fossil-fuels folks brought us all to this party,we might want to enlist them in whatever new enterprise we selected.They obviously know how to get things done.

Kamikaze attacks have a greater sense of urgency attached than seas rising a couple inches per decade. That's the difference between being thrown into a boiling pot, and having the temperature slowly raised.

There are many businesses already capitalizing on climate change, and I expect more to follow. Heck, nuke might even get pulled back into the mix at some point. I could see Big Oil diversifying so long as they can do so without undermining their primary profit, or replacing their primary profitability with something more lucrative.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't know what made me think of this OT thing, but ever notice how there's a common theme in movies where they say that talking is wasting oxygen? Metabolic rate determines oxygen consumption, not how quickly air moves into or out of the lungs.

Perhaps I was thinking in terms of the Earth metabolic rate?

Some of the pocket-protector set have referred to Earth as our spaceship,with a crew of 7,000,000,000. And we're having a 'Houston,we have a problem' moment,and the flight director supposed to set the entire engineering team loose,to explore every avenue to a solution.
I personally think about Apollo-13.Carbon dioxide was building to lethal levels in the command module and they had to evacuate to the service module,cut power by 13-Amps,cobble a *******ized Lithium hydroxide CO2 filter element together with duct tape,and hunker down in freezing conditions 'til they neared Earth enough for a one-shot retro burn for re-entry.
They had to economize on everything they had,breathing included.
Metabolic rate could be a great metaphor for a number of things.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Kamikaze attacks have a greater sense of urgency attached than seas rising a couple inches per decade. That's the difference between being thrown into a boiling pot, and having the temperature slowly raised.

There are many businesses already capitalizing on climate change, and I expect more to follow. Heck, nuke might even get pulled back into the mix at some point. I could see Big Oil diversifying so long as they can do so without undermining their primary profit, or replacing their primary profitability with something more lucrative.

I think they're gonna diversify into plastics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals,etc..

[redpoint5]

Of course, marketing is about coming up with the largest number of reasons to purchase a product. What could be better for business than selling a product that people burn, and then come back to get more? That's a tough market to divest from.