The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

That has more specificity than the freshman congresscritters demand. How do you propose that that happens in 2 months.*

Sorry. I meant we will be able to begin the decades long revamping of everything after January 2021 when we inaugurate a forward thinking President and flip the Senate.

[freebeard]

I find you at Permalink #7373, but still don't know who billvon post_id=1502091 time=1570381196 user_id=2042 is.

I won't accuse you of moving the goal posts, it a common enough short-hand. This 'forward[-]thinking President' would have to be a God-Emperor, where do you propose to find one of those?

[Were #7310 and #7311 cross-talk for another thread?]

Originally Posted by litesong

From maps & references in "Exploring Washington (state)" in areas marked on Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake backed up behind Grand Coulee Dam:

Being submerged protects them from looters? My brother is a diver and he did a dive on a dugout canoe submerged in an anonymized Oregon lake. It was on a nature program (prolly PBS) but I can't [be bothered to] find a reference.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

but still don't know who billvon is.

Copy and paste from the other similar thread at endless-sphere

[freebeard]

Now I don't know what endless-sphere is. Let's not worry about it.

Phys.org sez:
Work less to save the planet? How to make sure a four-day week actually cuts emissions

I read a book in the 1970s by a Texas oilman titled Time Wealth. Internet knows nothing about it, I may still have my copy.

His hypothesis is that a four-day week won't work because the factories would sit idle three days instead of two. Three 10-hour days means a thirty-hour work week, and with two shifts the factories hum six days a week instead of five.

Plus which, if you like the way it is now you can work two shifts for a 60-hour week.

[freebeard]

Vee posted about this on Youtube, but no link there because language. He didn't provide a link, but DDG found it as the first result: [redacted]

Discussions: Greta, we need help!!#
By ray_lynn on Saturday, September 28, 2019 - 3:53 pm:

"For those that missed it, let’s Recap: <— search term that worked

1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources by 2000
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970s: Killer Bees!
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing by 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
2006: Super Hurricanes!
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos
2019: Hey Greta, we need you to convince them it’s really going to happen this time"

Whatever you do, don't go to their home page. > redacted to keep my own self out of trouble with the mods.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Being submerged protects them from looters?

Ah, being submerged must have also protected the Native Tribes & their cultures, who were flushed out by the back up, as the FDR Lake rose. It is good that someone with a caring, loving, white ancestry, still tells the Native Tribes, what is good for them.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Now I don't know what endless-sphere is. Let's not worry about it.

Phys.org sez:
Work less to save the planet? How to make sure a four-day week actually cuts emissions

I read a book in the 1970s by a Texas oilman titled Time Wealth. Internet knows nothing about it, I may still have my copy.

His hypothesis is that a four-day week won't work because the factories would sit idle three days instead of two. Three 10-hour days means a thirty-hour work week, and with two shifts the factories hum six days a week instead of five.

Plus which, if you like the way it is now you can work two shifts for a 60-hour week.

4x 8h work week gives 32hrs total. Factories can run 24x7 on three shifts that way. An idling factory is a waste, so instead of having more factories idling more, have fewer factories running 24x7 365. In the silicon wafer industry, the factories run 24x7 365, with the exception of the fall time change. Factory shuts down at 1am and doesn't resume until 2am... 2hrs later when the time falls back. They still haven't solved the problem of an earlier fabrication process showing a later time stamp than the later fabrication process. The company probably loses half a million dollars during that time, but somehow we think daylight wasting time is a good idea.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by litesong

It is good that someone with a caring, loving, white ancestry, still tells the Native Tribes, what is good for them.

Agreed. Surely you're not suggesting they were discriminated against. Or not compensated.

In 1933, Reclamation began efforts to purchase land behind the dam as far as 151 mi (243 km) upstream for the future reservoir zone. The reservoir, known later as Lake Roosevelt, flooded 70,500 acres (285 km2) and Reclamation acquired an additional 11,500 acres (47 km2) around the future shoreline. Within the zone were eleven towns, two railroads, three state highways, about one hundred and fifty miles of country roads, four sawmills, fourteen bridges, four telegraph and telephone systems, and many power lines and cemeteries. All facilities had to be purchased or relocated, and 3,000 residents were relocated.[47] ... Members of the Colville Confederated and Spokane tribes who had settlements within the reservoir zone were also resettled. The Acquisition of Indian Lands for Grand Coulee Dam Act of June 29, 1940, allowed the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land on the Colville and Spokane Reservations, eventually accounting for 21,100 acres (85 km2).[49] By 1942, all land had been purchased at market value: a cost of $10.5 million that included the relocation of farms, bridges, highways and railroads. Relocation reimbursement was not offered to property owners, which was common until U.S. laws changed in 1958.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_...rvoir_clearing

Grand Coulee Dam flooded over 21,000 acres (85 km2) of prime bottom land where Native Americans had been living and hunting for thousands of years, forcing the relocation of settlements and graveyards.[90] The Office of Indian Affairs negotiated with the United States Bureau of Reclamation on behalf of tribes who were concerned about the flooding of their grave sites. The Acquisition of Indian Lands for Grand Coulee Dam, 54 Stat.703 Act of June 20, 1940 allowed the Secretary of the Interior to remove human remains to new Native American grave sites. The burial relocation project started in September 1939. Human remains were put into small containers and many artifacts were discovered, but the methods of collection destroyed archaeological evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_...l_consequences

The part about no salmon ladders in the Upper Columbia was an inopportune decision, but the Salmon cannon hadn''t been invented yet.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

4x 8h work week gives 32hrs total. Factories can run 24x7 on three shifts that way.

Point taken. 'Factories' wasn't the best example. I like the idea of less commuting. And a four-day weekend every week.

[redpoint5]

I worked alternating 3 and 4 day work weeks, with 12hr shifts. It was nice having 3 to 4 day weekends, but I mostly wasted them being a single guy and a (I'll do it tomorrow) personality.

My commute is currently about 40ft, but I'm back to the 5 (or more) workdays.

I really don't understand why people need to be in an office building. While I miss the face to face interaction with people, we have phone, IM, email, Skype, etc.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I had "Blue Planet 2" on in the background last night, and Attenborough mentioned that a 2C increase in ocean temperature, even just momentarily, can cause coral to die. My immediate thought was that means somewhere else temperatures have just warmed to the right temperature for coral to begin growing. Then there's the other factor, that ocean depth has to be just right for coral to grow, so that rising depth makes certain areas unsuitable for coral growth... again, that just means some other area is now made suitable for coral growth.

Pointing out changes in environment isn't a compelling argument. A compelling argument shows that something is lost and not gained back anywhere else.

As I always point out, our direct actions always cause way more disruption than indirect consequences. For instance, oceans fish populations might be affected by temperature changes, but overfishing is an even more severe problem.

The Great Barrier Reef is dying, and it is very likely going away.

It is more than just temperature - it is also increased acidity; which makes it harder and harder for animals with shells to actually form them.

The ocean has been absorbing most of the carbon dioxide, and most of the heat. This inevitably means that it will release that carbon dioxide back out into the air - colder water can absorb more gases than warmer water.

Ocean water already has less oxygen in solution. As it warms, it will lose more and more - so sea animals will die.