The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't think you quoted what you think you quoted. I wasn't talking about cell phones or technology; merely stating the obvious, that economics depends on fossil fuel consumption, and that is why developing countries are given a pass to consume whatever amount it takes for them to be considered "developed". Then they can join the rest of the people in feeling miserable, depressed, self-loathing, and consider themselves no-good exploiters of the oppressed.

I think you missed my point.

We cannot take ANY more time quibbling about who has to stop using fossil fuels first - the climate doesn't "care" where the greenhouse gases come from.

People in the future won't forgive us for IGNORING FACTS, and still insisting we have a "right" to burn fossil fuels.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by sendler

I think you must be still conflating total primary ENERGY with total ELECTRICITY. Which is only a small part of the total energy the world uses...So we see a defensive reply that we have also seen many times before, that a chart from 2017 is totally outdated. Which it is not. Only one year has passed and growth of World energy consumption is still far outpacing actual added solar and wind PRODUCTION (which is also constantly conflated with added CAPACITY). There is only 1 year newer data possible. And please see that the newest chart that I just posted just came out for Germany and is showing the 2018 (we are still in 2019 by the way so there is no way to get a newer annual total) total primary energy by source. They are a World leader in spending per capita on solar and wind buildout and are now up to 4.6% of their ENERGY consumption from these sources. We are being admonished by the strikers to 'Tell the truth". Facts are facts.

It is going to be very hard, but we have NO CHOICE - if we are acting ethically.

You see, we are doing other terrible things, in addition to ruining the climate. We are also ruining the soil - dumping artificial fertilizers (made from natural gas) on the soil KILLS the life than made the soil. Even if we weren't facing a climate crisis - we would be facing a collapse of our factory farming.

But, of course we are facing a dire climate crisis - that is itself adding a huge pressure on our food supply. And we are poisoning our world, and killing off the pollinators. We have lost about 30% of all birds - who eat insects. We have lost about 70% of all the flying insects. We have lost about 50% of the plankton. We are losing fishing grounds.

We have dumped plastic everywhere. It is in the food chain.

We are overpumping aquifers. We are exhausting phosphorus mines.

We can expect A BILLION people to be displaced by climate effects in this century.

[Hersbird]

I posted this over at a long beaten horse topic and it got moved so as long as I'm in the lounge let me post it in the correct thread.

Here's what I have learned from the application of science. Oh I had the classroom theory, year, and years, and years at the highest levels possible at the finest institutions. Training with a failure rate higher than that experienced by Navy Seals, just all academic not physical. So I learned how things are supposed to be, then for 8 years I applied it. often 80+ hours a week, at least 48 weeks a year. Titrations, spectrophotometers, centrifuges, ph meters, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, etc. The joke I had heard became reality. When you as field chemist are asked what something is, the reply is, "What do you want it to be?" Keep in mind this is in the realm of hard science. We know exactly what is happening, nothing is speculation, nothing is unknown in a process, we aren't filling in any blanks. We can push those precise analysis to a huge range of results based on tiny accuracy of analysis errors at each step. Now if the outcome didn't have a bias then most would wash out and overall you would have a pretty honest result. But when you have done it a thousand times you soon find that those paying the checks actually are looking for specific results. So you give them what they expect.

Now I look at man's effect on the climate and the results both sides get, knowing what it is like in the real world. I also know from my almost 50 years of riding this planet how amazing it all seems to be. It's not some fragile piece of glass waiting to be shattered by a small input from man. Animals aren't fragile, people aren't fragile, plants aren't fragile, the rocks, the core, the atmosphere, none of it, is weak.

one place where I see the bias pushing results, is in the burying of solutions that could help remove C02, if it does need removed, if those solutions don't also involve a political push that the convenient truth of favors one political religion. So say large CO2 scrubbers. I have read detailed reports that show how that could be done on a large scale at under $100 per ton. Worst case $1000 per ton with current technology. I always hear how batteries will get better and less expensive with time an application, so wouldn't that be true here as well? Maybe $50/ton is possible one day. But even at $1000/ton it still would be less expensive that the Green New Deal. What it doesn't do is control people, scare them into voting a certain way, live a way good for the state, and all the other things where the solution seems to be the same solution communism was supposed to fix.

This doesn't even touch on all the unknowns, that you have to plug into models. Again pushing the results where you want the outcome to fall. What do clouds do? We don't know, so we guess. Imagine what the guess is from those that want this to be a huge problem? That's right more clouds, and clouds don't cool they heat even more. We don't know that there will be more clouds, or that clouds will heat even more, but we will take that error of analysis and carry it forward to the next guess we make. This time about say the ocean's carbon sink, and on and on. To get the small warming that will somehow make part of the Earth uninhabitable, you have to keep multiplying those guesses by themselves because if you took an more average approach we would end up with results that we have actually experienced the last 20 years, rather than the results that scare people into submitting to their religion.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by litesong

litesong wrote:
Greta is getting things going.... even on an vehicle website. Way to go, Greta!
///////
redpoint5 wrote:
I'll give a "thanks" for the most on-topic post you've made, and the utter lack of ad-hominems.
/////
litesong wrote:
In my unadulterated enthusiasm for Greta, I did NOT add my contempt for AGW deniers. I did NOT want to harmonize with her, detracting from her clangorous criticism of us old farts.

& Greta Thunberg is shaking some politics already:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.XZIx4oWkKt8

[litesong]

Like Hersbird thot its post should be, these posts should also be continued in this thread:
Posted by Hersbird:
....glaciers melting is the observation, now why?
///////
litesong wrote:
Excess Glacier melt isn't caused by the sun, since the sun's TSI hasn't risen enough to account for it AND TSI has been low for the last 13+ years. Possible cosmic ray increases can't account for the melt. Glacial melt isn't caused by solar cycles, since rising temperatures & the melt are way too quick to be accounted for by slowly shifting solar cycles. However, snappily rising man-made GHG, infra-red energy absorbing CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6 & other GHGs have been rapidly rising in the atmosphere, mathematically accounting for excess heat being delayed in Earth's lower biosphere. In addition to the GHGs are the positive feedback mechanisms, initiated by excess GHGs, all again, accounting for excess heat.

Of course, Hersbird knew this already, because the above has been told it before. It just repeats a question it has offered before, that it thinks is rhetorical, is easily asked & sometimes not answered. Such is a common strategy by AGW deniers.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is going to be very hard, but we have NO CHOICE - if we are acting ethically.

We actually will eventually have no choice - at all. Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. And we are already into overshoot.
.
The point I keep trying to show people is the scale of our consumption. We are living in a one time carbon energy pulse. Which made possible the Great Acceleration after 1955 and the start of the Green Revolution. Which is the story of applying huge amounts of cheap fossil energy, and fossil fertilizer and insecticides, to replace growing food and picking weeds and destructive insects by human and animal muscle power. And then in the 1960's, the wide spread availability of antibiotics. Which fended off world starvation and allowed the population to triple in 70 years. It is not hard to replace 17.7 TeraWatts, 87% from fossil fuel, with solar and wind. It is proving to be impossible. Even half of it. We still get 3 times more energy from burning wood than from solar and wind. And it is not possible to grow the same amount of food by hand and horse and without fertilizer. Most people will have to give up having a "job" and go back to "work" growing food. The carbon slaves freed the human slaves (mostly). Let's make sure we do not go back the other way.
.
Fortunately our opulent modern lifestyle leaves a big cushion to fall back to once we all realize that growth of consumption cannot continue and accept that everything will have to change.
.
.

.
.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by litesong

Like Hersbird thot its post should be, these posts should also be continued in this thread:
Posted by Hersbird:
....glaciers melting is the observation, now why?
///////
litesong wrote:
Excess Glacier melt isn't caused by the sun, since the sun's TSI hasn't risen enough to account for it AND TSI has been low for the last 13+ years. Possible cosmic ray increases can't account for the melt. Glacial melt isn't caused by solar cycles, since rising temperatures & the melt are way too quick to be accounted for by slowly shifting solar cycles. However, snappily rising man-made GHG, infra-red energy absorbing CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6 & other GHGs have been rapidly rising in the atmosphere, mathematically accounting for excess heat being delayed in Earth's lower biosphere. In addition to the GHGs are the positive feedback mechanisms, initiated by excess GHGs, all again, accounting for excess heat.

Of course, Hersbird knew this already, because the above has been told it before. It just repeats a question it has offered before, that it thinks is rhetorical, is easily asked & sometimes not answered. Such is a common strategy by AGW deniers.

And my more specific response to that was...

That's one theory, but it then becomes a one in 10,000 occurrence as it has happened 10,000 times before without any input from man.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is going to be very hard, but we have NO CHOICE - if we are acting ethically.

You see, we are doing other terrible things, in addition to ruining the climate. We are also ruining the soil - dumping artificial fertilizers (made from natural gas) on the soil KILLS the life than made the soil. Even if we weren't facing a climate crisis - we would be facing a collapse of our factory farming.

But, of course we are facing a dire climate crisis - that is itself adding a huge pressure on our food supply. And we are poisoning our world, and killing off the pollinators. We have lost about 30% of all birds - who eat insects. We have lost about 70% of all the flying insects. We have lost about 50% of the plankton. We are losing fishing grounds.

We have dumped plastic everywhere. It is in the food chain.

We are overpumping aquifers. We are exhausting phosphorus mines.

We can expect A BILLION people to be displaced by climate effects in this century.

All of those things have more to do with human population size than anything else. It seems a decline in our numbers is the inevitable solution to these problems, which I expect will happen mostly non-violently due to adoption of various technologies. Not in 10 years though. It will be a couple hundred years before population dwindles to say, half of current.

Based on nothing but speculation, I expect population to peak in 40 years.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by sendler

...We still get 3 times more energy from burning wood than from solar and wind.

Wood is one of the most polluting forms of carbon energy production:
Wood Smoke Myths and Facts
Also, the very inefficient production & usage of wood energy is surpassed by efficient production & usage of solar & wind energy, to place important viable renewable energy in with carbon energy production & usage.
So much for RECENT carbon advocate(CA) predictions that renewable energy would never exceed 1% of total energy production. Those anti-science (sigh-ants) CA predictions were made to suppress renewable energy developments & boost carbon energy productions.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Nice straw man argument you have there. That cartoon in no way reflects reality.

Maybe not climate change, but it accurately reflects a general disposition of a large segment of the gen pop.

Those anti-science (sigh-ants) CA predictions...

You're wavering litesong. Try to write like a grownup.