The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

The ice on Antarctic and Greenland (and mountain ranges) raise the sea level around them, because their mass "adds" gravity.

The Antarctic ice is about 2.5 miles thick, and it is pressing the land under it down almost half a mile.

The earth is an oblate spheroid because of its rotation - and the "additional" gravity of the Antarctic ice is raising the sea level south of the equator by about 9,000 feet.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=9428163

So, Mt Chimborazo is closer to space than Mt Everest. Elevation above sea level is an arbitrary measurement, and fairly random; being based on location, rather than actual height above the center of the earth.

The proportion of sea level rise from warmer water being less dense means than spreading the mass of the water over a larger area - would tend to have the sea floor rise a tiny amount.

The proportion (that is increasing) of sea level rise from additional water from melting land ice, is increasing the mass of the ocean, and this will press the sea floor down somewhat. As the land ice melts, the land under it will rise up.

The land in the upper midwest of the US is still rising up after the ice cap melted.

All of this will have an unsettling effect on plate tectonics.

[sendler]

Well... Increased desertification of North and Central Africa and the Middle East in the areas of highest population growth and starvation. Acidification of the oceans and temperature rise transitioning biosystems toward algae blooms and jelly fish. Northern grain belts, animal and plant species, migrations, seasons, ect drifting North. Stuff like that.
.
But... Resource depletion will hurt us humans sooner and harder than climate change. Which is something most people have no understanding about. Vast consumption of fossil energy has allowed us to develop into an enormous, growth based society, several times larger than the carrying capacity of the planet can sustain without the extravagant level of fossil energy consumption. For which there is no replacement which can approach it's scale.

[johnny77]

I'm with George Carlin on this the planet isn't going any were u can't save what's not in danger. We are in danger the planet is not.

[redpoint5]

I'm onboard with efficiency and conservation for their own ends, not to claim a superior moral position. My life on earth isn't causing tsunamis, earthquakes, sea rise, polar bear death, mosquito proliferation, or desert expansion. I've caused way more direct harm towards others by being a jerk than through environmental contamination.

Discussion of how climate works is good, but when people react without thinking through the consequences, it harms people, often times those with the fewest means.

Now CA is considering a bill to ban all emissions from vehicles by 2040. Sounds great on the face of it. What are the unintended negative consequences?

https://insideevs.com/new-bill-propo...les-to-be-zev/

[oil pan 4]

I guess California is still incapable of critical thinking.

The unintended consequences, at the very least they will be demobilizing a good portion of their poor people who don't live in the city.

[freebeard]

Saint George RIP

It's not my fault they are at such a loss to explain 20 years of failed dooms day climate change predictions.

I'd go further. Flat-out hubris causes authority figures to misinterpret [incomplete] climate data and decide they must act to reduce solar incidence with chem-trails or other means, in the face of a climate minimum.

Then they decide to counter exploding population by screwing with peoples heads. A quarter of the tweens in California have gender dysphoria.

...efficiency and conservation for their own ends...

What If We Create a Better World For Nothing? - GreenMonk: the blog

[sendler]

Certainly you guys don't think that 2% growth of GDP, population, food production, energy consumption, mineral consumption, ect, can go on much longer?
.
As a matter of fact, even if 1% degrowth could begin today (which it can't without upending everthing) humans will still find total energy which is primarily from fossil fuels, and essential minerals such as Phosphorous for articial fertilizer slipping out of reach in the next 50 years.

[freebeard]

Certainly you guys don't think that 2% growth of GDP, population, food production, energy consumption, mineral consumption, ect, can go on much longer?

Certainly don't.

Without professional sports, pets, religion, and political corruption 1% degrowth would be sufficient to everyone's needs.

We are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody.

R. Buckminster Fuller

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Certainly you guys don't think that 2% growth of GDP, population, food production, energy consumption, mineral consumption, ect, can go on much longer?
.
As a matter of fact, even if 1% degrowth could begin today (which it can't without upending everthing) humans will still find total energy which is primarily from fossil fuels, and essential minerals such as Phosphorous for articial fertilizer slipping out of reach in the next 50 years.

Peak population will occur just as peak oil will occur. Better for both of these to occur gradually rather than suddenly, which thankfully is naturally what will happen. GDP (or more accurately, resource consumption) will decline as population declines.

The opposite problem of a population reduction rate will eventually occur within my lifetime (likely end), and people will have to be incentivized to reproduce. The trend towards not having children, or having children later in life, and the decline in marriage will decrease the population, especially as men increasingly find alternative outlets for their sexual energy (VR porn, sexbots), and feminism perpetuates the idea that women are the same as men, and therefore have no use of their affection.

We'll find ways to continue living better than previous generations through technology. Sophisticated and cheap robotics may allow us to vastly reduce reliance on pesticides, for instance. There is already a laser/camera combo capable of identifying mosquitos and zapping them, for instance. Get a few drones to patrol a field and kill what is not crop.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Certainly don't.

Bucky is absolutely right, and a few will be all that is needed to spoil it for the many. As individuals continue to grow in destructive power and anonymity, the consequences of their psychopathy will have increasingly devastating results.

[sendler]

The big economic problem is that our current system cannot function with less than 2% growth. Degrowth = crash. Which is the only reason population increases (or lack of decrease) will ever be incentivised before we get back to 3 Billion. Struggling to hang onto a no longer valid economic system. The only thing that built all of this, and keeps it going is fossil fuel. We must wake up and face the fact that even if we stop everything else and focus our remaining resources toward building out alternative energy, there is no way to even come close to replacing all of this in quantity of total energy from finite fossil fuels and definetly not in the quality and utilty of liquid fuel.
.
.

.
.
Brown=biomass
Blue=coal
Rust=oil
Green=natural gas