Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 13:23:45

Wow, vox!

And then there's this:

Climate change impacts on Africa, in the coming decades, will not be limited to that continent as hunger drives tens to hundreds of millions of people to immigrant primarily northward to the EU (and elsewhere):

Fall Army Worm Arrives in Africa on the Heels of Climate Change

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/fall-a ... ate-change

A rapidly spreading invasive pest now threatens crops across the continent

Endemic to North and South America, the fall armyworm was first spotted in January 2016 in Nigeria. No one knows for certain how it arrived on the African continent, but since its initial appearance the pest has spread to more than 28 countries, including South Africa, Burundi, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and most recently, Sudan and Mali. As it has spread, it has destroyed more than 740,000 acres of maize, the staple food for more than 200 million Africans...


thanks to aslr at asif for text and link
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16836
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 14 Oct 2017, 13:45:43

The linked reference concludes: "... the specific equilibrium climate sensitivity which considers radiative forcing of CO2 and land ice sheet (LI) albedo, S[CO2,LI], is larger during interglacial states than during glacial conditions by more than a factor two." This is not good news as consensus climate science typically assumes the modern ECS is essentially the same as that during the last glacial period. Thus is it conceivable that before 2100 the effective ECS (S[X) could be as high as 6C.


Peter Koehler, Lennert Stap, Anna von der Heydt, Bas de Boer, Roderik, S. W. van de Wal & Jonah Bloch-Johnson (4 October 2017), "A state-dependent quantification of climate sensitivity based on paleo data of the last 2.1 million years", Paleoceanography, DOI: 10.1002/2017PA003190

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0/abstract

Abstract: "The evidence from both data and models indicates that specific equilibrium climate sensitivity S[X] — the global annual mean surface temperature change (ΔTg) as a response to a change in radiative forcing X (ΔR[X]) — is state-dependent. Such a state dependency implies that the best fit in the scatter plot of ΔTg versus ΔR[X] is not a linear regression, but can be some non-linear or even non-smooth function. While for the conventional linear case the slope (gradient) of the regression is correctly interpreted as the specific equilibrium climate sensitivity S[X], the interpretation is not straightforward in the non-linear case. We here explain how such a state-dependent scatter plot needs to be interpreted, and provide a theoretical understanding — or generalization — how to quantify S[X] in the non-linear case. Finally, from data covering the last 2.1 Myr we show that — due to state dependency — the specific equilibrium climate sensitivity which considers radiative forcing of CO2 and land ice sheet (LI) albedo, , is larger during interglacial states than during glacial conditions by more than a factor two."

thanks again to aslr for this
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16836
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 02 Nov 2017, 14:49:15

good overview of the potential health impacts of climate change.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/c ... alth_.html

One interesting impact on health mentioned in the above article is the impact that severe weather events and other catastrophes have on the mental health of the victims.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/06 ... re-mental6

Also:

Climate change expected to increase the incidence of toxic algal blooms
.

https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/c ... gal-blooms

https://www.nature.com/news/climate-cha ... se-1.21884

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b01498

Harvests in U.S. to suffer from climate change.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-harvests-climate.html

Thanks to SH at asif for text and links
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16836
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 18:28:51

A Failure of Imagination on Climate Risks

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017- ... ate-risks/

Climate change is an existential risk that could abruptly end human civilisation because of a catastrophic “failure of imagination” by global leaders to understand and act on the science and evidence before them.

At the London School of Economics in 2008, Queen Elizabeth questioned: “Why did no one foresee the timing, extent and severity of the Global Financial Crisis?” The British Academy answered a year later: “A psychology of denial gripped the financial and corporate world… [it was] the failure of the collective imagination of many bright people… to understand the risks to the system as a whole”.

A “failure of imagination” has also been identified as one of the reasons for the breakdown in US intelligence around the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

A similar failure is occurring with climate change today.

The problem is widespread at the senior levels of government and global corporations. A 2016 report, Thinking the unthinkable, based on interviews with top leaders around the world, found that:

A proliferation of ‘unthinkable’ events… has revealed a new fragility at the highest levels of corporate and public service leaderships. Their ability to spot, identify and handle unexpected, non-normative events is… perilously inadequate at critical moments… Remarkably, there remains a deep reluctance, or what might be called ‘executive myopia’, to see and contemplate even the possibility that ‘unthinkables’ might happen, let alone how to handle them.


Such failures are manifested in two ways in climate policy. At the political, bureaucratic and business level in underplaying the high-end risks and in failing to recognise that the existential risk of climate change is totally different from other risk categories. And at the research level in underestimating the rate of climate change impact and costs, along with an under-emphasis on, and poor communication of, those high-end risks.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16836
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby GHung » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 18:36:32

Such failures are manifested in two ways in climate policy. At the political, bureaucratic and business level in underplaying the high-end risks and in failing to recognise that the existential risk of climate change is totally different from other risk categories. And at the research level in underestimating the rate of climate change impact and costs, along with an under-emphasis on, and poor communication of, those high-end risks.


.... or a simple as not wanting to stampede the herd, eh?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 11:30:41

Much more plus a lot of pictures at link below quote.

One of the most profound effects of a warming world is underway on US soil – the impact will force thousands to relocate, and have far-reaching, global consequences. Sara Goudarzi reports from Alaska.

Vladimir Romanovsky walks through the dense black spruce forest with ease. Not once does he stop or slow down to balance himself on the cushy moss beneath his feet insulating the permafrost.

It’s a warm day in July, and the scientist is looking for a box that he and his team have installed on the ground. It’s hidden nearly six miles (10km) north of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, where he’s a professor of geophysics and heads the Permafrost Laboratory.

The box, which is covered by tree branches, contains a data collector connected to a thermometer installed below ground for measuring permafrost temperature at different depths. Permafrost is any earth material that remains at or below 0C (32F) for at least two consecutive years.

Romanovsky connects his laptop to the data collector to transfer the temperature data for this location – called Goldstream III – which he will later add to an online database accessible to both scientists and interested individuals.

“Permafrost is defined on the basis of temperature, the parameter that characterises its stability,” Romanovsky says.

When the temperature of permafrost is below 0C (32F), for example -6C (21F), it is considered stable and will take a long time to thaw or to change. If it's close to 0C, however, it's considered vulnerable.

Every summer the portion of soil overlaying the permafrost, called the active layer, thaws, before refreezing the following winter. At Goldstream III, on this July day, the summer thaw currently ends at 50cm depth.

As the Earth warms and summer temperatures climb, the thaw is deepening and expanding, causing the permafrost underneath to become less stable.

The consequences, if this thawing continues, will be profound, for Alaska – and for the world. Nearly 90% of the state is covered in permafrost, which means entire villages will need to be relocated, as the foundations of buildings and roads crumble. And if this frozen cache releases the millennia of accumulated carbon it has locked within, it could accelerate the warming of our planet – far beyond our ability to control it.

A vulnerable state

As permafrost thaws, houses, roads, airports and other infrastructure built on the frozen ground can crack and even collapse.

“We are seeing some increased maintenance on existing roads over permafrost,” says Jeff Currey, materials engineer for Northern Region of the Alaska Department of Transportation Public Facilities. “One of our maintenance superintendents recently told me his folks are having to patch settling areas on the highways he's responsible for more frequently than they were 10 or 20 years ago.”

There are diseases hidden in the ice, and they are waking up

Miami’s fight against rising seas

How climate change will transform business

Similarly, infrastructure built underground – such as those for utilities – is suffering as temperatures rise.

“In Point Lay – on the coast in northwest Alaska – for instance, they're having all sorts of trouble with their water and sewer lines buried in permafrost soil,” says William Schnabel, director of the Water & Environmental Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. “The permafrost soil has thawed and we get water and line breaks because the ground shifts.”

The concern is even more pronounced for those living in rural areas who don't have enough funds to combat the effects of thawing permafrost. For those residents it's not just about collapsing buildings, which is common now, but also water supply.

Often as permafrost thaws on the side of a lake that a village might use as water supply, there’s a breach and a lateral drain occurs. “It usually requires pretty expensive infrastructure to take water from a lake, bring it to a village and store it and all the components of this infrastructure are vulnerable to thawing permafrost,” Romanovsky says.

If a village depends on an affected lake for water, the community members would have to move their infrastructure and sometimes their entire village to another lake, which can be very costly.

According to research conducted by US Geological Survey, villages like Kivalina in north-west Alaska will have to move within the next 10 years, Romanovsky explains. “But estimates show cost of moving is about $200m (£150m) per village of 300 people.”


BBC The Big Thaw
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14101
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 11:53:49

Tanada wrote:Much more plus a lot of pictures at link below quote.

According to research conducted by US Geological Survey, villages like Kivalina in north-west Alaska will have to move within the next 10 years, Romanovsky explains. “But estimates show cost of moving is about $200m (£150m) per village of 300 people.”


BBC The Big Thaw

$200 million to move 300 people? Who is the contractor? Whitefish?
$667,000 per person? or at four to a house $2.7 million per house?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8117
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 12:35:47

vtsnowedin wrote:
Tanada wrote:Much more plus a lot of pictures at link below quote.

According to research conducted by US Geological Survey, villages like Kivalina in north-west Alaska will have to move within the next 10 years, Romanovsky explains. “But estimates show cost of moving is about $200m (£150m) per village of 300 people.”


BBC The Big Thaw

$200 million to move 300 people? Who is the contractor? Whitefish?
$667,000 per person? or at four to a house $2.7 million per house?


It's a remote community with no road access so I am not surprised at the high cost. All the infrastructure -- electrical generation, water treatment, sewage disposal, school, store, etc. will need to be rebuilt at the new village site. I would not expect that people are living in fancy houses so trying to move existing houses to a new village site probably would not make sense. It's going to be a complete rebuild of everything at a new location.

Of course nothing is going to happen for at least three more years as the present administration believe that climate change (and hence sea level rise) is "fake news".
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 12:40:04

If that cost figure is even remotely accurate then the answer is that the village will not be replaced. It will be abandoned and the people will move to the nearest still habitable village or all the way to Anchorage or Juno.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8117
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 13:33:05

vtsnowedin wrote:If that cost figure is even remotely accurate then the answer is that the village will not be replaced. It will be abandoned and the people will move to the nearest still habitable village or all the way to Anchorage or Juno.


That would be the logical thing to do but if aboriginal communities in Alaska are handled in anything approximating the way they are handled in Canada that won't happen. In Newfoundland, the government has managed to eliminate hundreds of remote outports since the 1960's because they were no longer economically viable and too expensive to provide services to. However, remote aboriginal communities are immovable. It doesn't matter that a community has no economic reason for existing and huge social problems due to its remoteness. The majority of residents will always opt to stay right where they are and since they have treaty rights we are stuck with the massive cost of supporting them. That cost keeps rising beyond the rate of inflation since the courts keep mandating higher levels of service and the birthrate tends to be quite high.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 00:15:25

vt wrote:

$200 million to move 300 people? Who is the contractor? Whitefish?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16836
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 22 Nov 2017, 12:26:15

The Corruption of the Climatisatas

Here’s a paradox that few people in the fawning green media seem to perceive: the more serious you think the problem of global warming may be in the future, the more farcical and unserious are the policy prescriptions of the “climate change community.” In fact I’ll go further: if perchance we do experience catastrophic, man-made global warming many decades from now, historians will look back and blame the environmental community for being the chief impediment to taking serious incremental action to reduce carbon emissions in a significant way—not the so-called “climate deniers.” Today’s wind and solar racket, and all of the fancy pieces of paper UN bureaucrats sign in Paris making promises that no nation is going to keep, will be looked at with the same disdain that we today look back at the League of Nations treaty and the disarmament efforts of the 1920s and 1930s.

The chief datum for this argument today is a terrific piece at Axios on “The Left’s Nuclear Problem,” i.e., the environmental movement’s continuing hatred of nuclear power—the one large-scale source of carbon-free electricity that we have (along with hydroelectric dams, which environmentalists also hate). I know a number of environmentalists like Stewart Brand who have changed their mind in the issue, and I know a prominent left-leaning environmental philanthropist who told me privately three years ago that the single biggest mistake of his life was opposing nuclear power back in the 1970s, in part because it led to a huge expansion of coal-fired power here and abroad.

But what about the leading environmental advocacy organizations? The Axios piece brutally reveals their craven cowardice:

Some Democratic politicians and prominent scientists have come out to back nuclear in recent years because of climate change, but most of the biggest environmental groups and influential leaders remain opposed. In interview after interview at a United Nations climate conference in Bonn, Germany, I noticed a trend: Politicians would cite the many challenges facing nuclear power, such as safety, how to store radioactive waste and the economics, as reasons their positions didn’t matter. . .

Many of America’s largest environmental groups, which have influence over liberal politicians, are doubling down on their opposition to nuclear power. They argue plummeting prices of wind and solar make nuclear power unnecessary.

Another reason: they’d lose donations, according to James Hansen, a climate scientist at Columbia University, and his colleague Steve Kirsch, a California-based entrepreneur and philanthropist. At a meeting in 2014 between Kirsch and Frances Beinecke, who at the time led the Natural Resources Defense Council, Beinecke said one of the reasons the group couldn’t back nuclear power is because it would lose donations.

“The lunch did in fact occur and there was no movement,” Kirsch said by email last week. A spokesman for NRDC declined to comment. Beinecke, who retired from NRDC later that year, didn’t respond to requests for comment. NRDC’s position on nuclear power resembles that of many others on the left: It would only support it if all of the industry’s challenges are “properly mitigated.”


A real profile in courage there: NRDC is putting its financial health ahead of the planet’s health. No wonder they argue that climate skeptics are in it for the money, because that’s the way they think about matters themselves.

Michael Shellenberger, Founder of Environmental Progress, is another lefty who has broken with orthodoxy to support nuclear power. Here he is giving a TED Talk in Berlin on how he changed his mind. Along the way he totally demolishes German’s energiewende, and its foolish rejection of nuclear power. Definitely worth the 20 minutes:
Schellenberger YouTube TEDtalk


LINK
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14101
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby GHung » Wed 22 Nov 2017, 12:40:00

In 2017, Shellenberger told The Australian: "Like most people, I started out pretty anti-nuclear. I changed my mind as I realised you can’t power a modern economy on solar and wind.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S ... ble_energy

Assumes we'll have a modern economy left to power. I no longer assume that.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 22 Nov 2017, 23:48:16

https://www.skepticalscience.com/WRI-em ... tries.html

data suggests emissions have already ‘peaked’ in 49 countries
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16836
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Ibon » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 07:16:42

GHung wrote:
In 2017, Shellenberger told The Australian: "Like most people, I started out pretty anti-nuclear. I changed my mind as I realised you can’t power a modern economy on solar and wind.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S ... ble_energy

Assumes we'll have a modern economy left to power. I no longer assume that.


Assumes also 7.5 billion and growing. The silver lining in failing to ramp up nuclear power is that we cause enough environmental disruption and economic havoc to first decline our global population and then have a more manageable base number of humans on the planet to carry forward using nuclear, solar, wind, fossil fuels etc.

We really do need to bring those numbers down. Population and consumption per capita. Then we can discuss a reasonable suite of power sources that should include nuclear.

Think about what would have happened had we ramped up nuclear and kept this super abundant energy regimen going for the next couple of hundred years? There are other environmental sinks just waiting to become the next limiting constraint. At what price to remaining natural ecosystems?

No one likes the idea of population correction, especially by design. And so we stumble along. But allowing our stupidity to result in inefficiencies is perhaps not a bad thing. We need to screw up some things to stop the trajectory of population growth and consumption growth. Otherwise we are toast.

I am against nuclear power because of how much energy this will produce.
I advocate being in denial against climate change in order to destabilize the juggernaut.

The underlying logic in these two positions is to weaken our dominant and parasitic foot print on the planet.

As soon as those numbers are down and consumption managed then instantly I would be in favor of nuclear power and also in addressing climate change. So my position would instantly reverse. This might seem a bit odd but there is an underlying logic here.

Not a popular position.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby baha » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 08:15:23

Ibon, I remember a thread here years ago that talked about natural constraints. Maybe it was you...It went something like this.

If you have a 1000 sqft house and unlimited energy and food you could get 10 - 20 people living there...but there would still be only one place to take a dump! :)
A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!
The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.

https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db
User avatar
baha
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 02:00:00
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby Ibon » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 08:53:21

baha wrote:Ibon, I remember a thread here years ago that talked about natural constraints. Maybe it was you...It went something like this.

If you have a 1000 sqft house and unlimited energy and food you could get 10 - 20 people living there...but there would still be only one place to take a dump! :)


Yes that was Asimov's parable of freedom and democracy. 2 people sharing an apartment means complete freedom and democracy in the use of the bathroom. 20 people sharing that same bathroom and freedom and democracy in the use of the bathroom is no longer possible and you need a central authority and regulations to manage bathroom use.

This is why China is communist and will always be as long as there are 1.5 billiong people to manage. You can't have libertarian government off my back form of government in a country like China

This is why Cog is against climate change regulation and any regulation for this requires central planning and the collective submitting to regulations which is collectivist.

The conclusion you can make is that less humans and less consumption provides more freedom and democracy for citizens. Less necessity of burdensome regulations.

Why was America, with this huge carrying capacity of an empty country after we did that genocide thing to the natives, why was North America the place where individual freedom and democracy reach its apex? Was it our constitution or Ronald Reagan or more fundamentally the underlying wide open spaces?

And why is America starting to decline in the 21st century and China on the rise?

China is destined to rise as the best organized state to manage over population since they have been honed for centuries doing this and have their citizens socialized.

In my heart of hearts being an American I do advocate destabilization globally until we break the parasitic exponential rise of human beings and allowing us to fall back to a manageable number where we can then get back to 2 in the apartment sharing one bathroom.

Quality over quantity of humans.

The Chinese model is too big a sacrifice. Better managed yes but like you said everyone waiting in line to take a dump.

Can I be so misanthropic to dare suggest that policies that promote instability and inefficiencies are our best hope until we get quickly back down to a number that allows us to manage optimal sustainable practices that does not overburden the population with draconian regulation.

How many Americans actually secretly advocate this? I can tell you unconsciously as a collective Americans will prefer self destruction of the global system over compliance with self regulation like the CHinese.

I am strangely sympathetic with this........ not completely but certainly if I am honest with myself I see this as accelerating the correction.

Do you really want 12 billion living like the chinese?

That is what ramping up nuclear power now will mean. That is what more efficiency means.

No thanks.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 09:04:24

Ibon is right. Overpopulation affects all quality of life issues. Nobody wins under these conditions. Being bought back into balance via the Overshoot Predator is necessary for the planet and for us
You can ignore reality but not its consequences
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8181
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby baha » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 09:13:04

There you go...alternative viewpoints at work. I often think I would be better off advocating for excess, to hurry the crash. Instead of realistic future planning. But I share the wealth with the people that matter and let the others fend for themselves.

There is no point in advocating for lifestyle changes until people are hurting. People in PR would love to have solar...people in NY, not so much.

Distributed power and food production will require distributed people. This runs contrary to globalism. As this proves true the US will have the option to re-think and spread out. China not so much...
A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!
The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.

https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db
User avatar
baha
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 02:00:00
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 19

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 10:16:07

Nice fantasies, Ibon, but of course there are all sorts of democracies that are much more democratic than ours that operate quite well in much more densely populated spaces than ours. Up until '89, sparsely populated Mongolia had just as authoritarian a government as China...

But don't let a plethora of facts get in the way of a fun, armchair theory! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, all pretty far off topic, I guess.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16836
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests