BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Mossback
Date: 02 Oct 19 - 01:49 PM

For Mr. Bruce, an historical anecdote:

“ I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
         Oliver Cromwell, letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland (3 August 1650)

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 19 - 01:45 PM

Steve's wierd semi alchemy is merely Donuel's microbial innovation.
But he is right that you can not put nickel in a cow's digestive tract and expect to get methane. But who would do that? eew

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 19 - 01:36 PM

"The level of solar activity beginning in the 1940s is exceptional – the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period).[7][8][9] The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years. Almost all earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."


The last DECADE had reduced solar flux, and reality ( but NOT the climate models) reflect that.

But we are coming out of the Little Ice Age

"The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850.[7][8][9]

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely independent regional climate changes rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (for example from the Black Death and the colonization of the Americas).[11]"

"In a 2012 paper, Miller et al. link the Little Ice Age to an "unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg" and notes that "large changes in solar irradiance are not required."[6]

Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity.[85] When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. The ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur, in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When it reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface.

A recent study found that an especially massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1257, possibly of the now-extinct Mount Samalas near Mount Rinjani, both in Lombok, Indonesia, followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275, and 1284 did not allow the climate to recover. This may have caused the initial cooling, and the 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling.[6] The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.

Other volcanoes that erupted during the era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Huaynaputina (1600), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea) (ca. 1660), and Laki (1783).[21] The 1815 eruption of Tambora, also in Indonesia, blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without a Summer,[86] when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe."



And remember the solar constant is +/- 2 %   See what model has that included.

" Scafetta and West,[45] who claimed that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argued that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[46] with TSI experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[47] Under this scenario, they claimed the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[48] Stott et al. estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999."

And yes, the models include some solar effects, based on the 11 year cycles. HOWEVER:
"Periodicity of solar activity with periods longer than the sunspot cycle has been proposed,[5] including:

The 210 year Suess cycle[35] (a.k.a. "de Vries cycle", named after Hans Eduard Suess and Hessel De Vries respectively) is recorded from radiocarbon studies, although "little evidence of the Suess Cycle" appears in the 400-year sunspot record.[5]

The Hallstatt cycle (named after a cool and wet period in Europe when glaciers advanced) is hypothesized to extend for approximately 2,400 years.[40][41][42][43]

An as yet unnamed cycle may extend over 6,000 years.[44]

In carbon-14 cycles of 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805 and 2,241 years have been observed, possibly matching cycles derived from other sources.[45] Damon and Sonett[46] proposed carbon 14-based medium- and short-term variations of periods 208 and 88 years; as well as suggesting a 2300-year radiocarbon period that modulates the 208-year period.[47]

During the Upper Permian 240 million years ago, mineral layers created in the Castile Formation show cycles of 2,500 years."

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 19 - 01:20 PM

I thought most would understand nickle 'eating' rather than saying nickle uptake...
The end-Permian extinction is associated with a mysterious disruption to Earth’s carbon cycle. Scientists identify causal mechanisms via three observations. First, they show that geochemical signals indicate superexponential growth of the marine inorganic carbon reservoir, coincident with the extinction and consistent with the expansion of a new microbial metabolic pathway. Second, they show that the efficient acetoclastic pathway in Methanosarcina emerged at a time statistically indistinguishable from the extinction. Finally, they show that nickel concentrations in South China sediments increased sharply at the extinction, probably as a consequence of massive Siberian volcanism, enabling a methanogenic expansion by removal of nickel limitation. Collectively, these results are consistent with the instigation of Earth’s greatest mass extinction by a specific microbial innovation.

I prefer the time saving metaphorical dumbed down succint rhetoric, 'nickel eating bacteria'

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 19 - 12:58 PM

"I just do not think that the present efforts are of any use other than to push the real problem down the road, so that there is less time to deal with the effect of climate change, and a FAR greater loss of life." bb

The sun cools yet Earth temps soar higher, don't you see a problem?
What are the present efforts?
What is the real problem?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 19 - 12:13 PM

Fine, Mr. Shaw.

Metabolises nickel, producing methane as a wast product. His comment is still valid


As the present "consensus is that the MODELS show that man-made effects are in control, perhaps you will consider that the MODEL is not as perfect as you seem to think.

The climate MODELS were run from 10 years to the present, to predict the actual temperature change. 95% of then were GREATER than the actual temperature change, as measured.
Just coincidence that the SOLAR FLUX has been trending DOWNWARD at
the time in question. Perhaps one might consider that the 10.7 cm solar flux AND IT'S EFFECT ON CLIMATE has NOT been modeled correctly, since the CO2 numbers can be made to fudge the formulas.

Then you could consider the changes over recent time ( decade or so) in both the Martian icecap and the Red Spot on Jupiter, both dependent of solar flux and NOT on man-made CO2 production.

The likelihood that man CAN reverse the climate change as seen is not as high as you seem to think. So efforts to reduce CO2 WHILE NOT TAKING THE NEEDED STEPS to move populations and deal with the EFFECTS of climate change is both a misuse of resources better spent saving lives, and a political powergrab.

As I stated, and SRS lied about, I do believe in climate change- I just do not think that the present efforts are of any use other than to push the real problem down the road, so that there is less time to deal with the effect of climate change, and a FAR greater loss of life.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 19 - 11:51 AM

"Metabolising" a metal is not the same as weird quasi-alchemy. Nickel cannot be converted by bacteria to methane. Be told, will you?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 19 - 11:23 AM

Oh hell Steve, there is even bacteria that can metabolize another metal called Arsenic. There are iron eating microbes in Antarctica that stain snow red. There is even bacteria that subtitutes Arsenic for potassium in its DNA. Life itself is a tough little bugger.
These facts are unknown to you so you react in a predictable way.
-or- there are more things in heaven or Earth Horatio...

I don't play the game of I am right and you are wrong anymore. Polite humility is often best. If you can't learn something new then by all means be happy that you are right. Sorry that sounded snarky.

My only simple and obvious point still remains that the unknown is a dangerous game changer.

I welcome criticism/reactions since I don't want to live in my own delusional bubble. Imagine Einstien's critics when he first said matter can be changed into energy or that gravity bends space.
Prove it, they said. Other people did it for him. I go further when I say a black hole has the means to change matter and energy into space/dark energy. I can't prove it but maybe others will.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Mossback
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 09:14 PM

Hi, Steve-

Remember post Date: 24 Sep 19 - 01:13 PM

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 08:37 PM

Bejaysus I can read all right, and this is what I read:


"bacteria that converts nickel to methane..."

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 06:13 PM

Mr Shaw,
Try reading what is said instead of putting into your own terms'

" Nickel-eating bacteria may have worsened the world's worst mass die-off by producing huge amounts of methane, a new study suggests.

The study is the latest attempt to explain how most of the world's ocean species died off in just a few hundred thousand years at the end of the Permian era, about 250 million years ago. The researchers presented their findings Tuesday here at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

The study proposes that a series of steps caused the mass extinction, but that bacteria played a key role. First, massive volcanic activity in Siberia released nickel into the atmosphere, which somehow reached the ocean. As a result, populations of ocean-dwelling bacteria that use nickel in their metabolic pathway exploded, releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere and depleting ocean oxygen levels as a byproduct of that metabolism. Because methane is a greenhouse gas, the catastrophic gas release trapped heat in the atmosphere and caused the mass extinction by making the climate uninhabitable.

But while the findings are intriguing, many of the steps in this process are speculative, said Anthony Cohen, a researcher at the Open University in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the study. [ Wipe Out: History's Most Mysterious Extinctions ]

"There are a lot of assumptions you have to make," Cohen told LiveScience.

For instance, it's not clear how the huge nickel deposited in lava flows in Siberia could have made it into seawater around the globe, he said.

The Great Dying
During " The Great Dying," up to 90 percent of the world's species perished. Though no one knows exactly how the mass die-off occurred, fossil records suggest gradual changes like ocean acidification and lessening atmospheric and oceanic oxygen first killed off species slowly, and cataclysmic volcanic eruptions or asteroid impacts then quickly wiped out the vast majority of life.

Another theory holds that vast troves of the greenhouse gas methane, which are normally trapped beneath the seafloor, were released from the ocean rapidly, causing apocalyptic levels of global warming.

Methane explosion
But just what caused that massive methane release remained a mystery. Daniel Rothman, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his colleagues wondered whether ocean-dwelling bacteria that churn out methane were the culprits.

His team found through genetic analysis that bacteria called methanosarcina evolved the ability to break down nickel and make methane as part of its metabolism about 251 million years ago. The bacteria may have exploded in population, thereby releasing the ocean's vast methane reserves. And because the bacteria add an oxygen molecule to methane during metabolism, an exponential rise in methanosarcina may have catastrophically depleted ocean oxygen levels.

But in order for methanosarcina to rapidly reproduce, the population would need a huge source of nickel.

Volcanoes fuel extinction
Around the same time, cataclysmic volcanic activity at the Siberian Traps in Norilsk, Russia, spewed up to 2.7 million square miles (7 million square kilometers) of nickel-rich lava.

"The world's largest nickel deposits are in Siberia," Rothman said during the AGU conference. "They are there as a result of Siberian volcanism around 252 million years ago." [ Watch Live: Latest News from 2012 AGU Meeting ]

So the bonanza of nickel needed to spur a population explosion in methanosarcina likely came from the Siberian Traps. If that's the case, then catastrophic volcanoes and methane-making bacteria may have combined to cause the world's worst extinction event.

Though many of the study's proposed causes for the Permian extinction are familiar, it does provide a new timeline of events, Cohen said.

"Quite a lot of the ideas have been around for a long time. It's just putting them together."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50088913/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/nickel-eating-bacteria-blamed-worlds-worst-extinction/#.X

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 05:47 PM

And your poetry may well be lovely but nickel cannot be transformed into methane. What we really don't need in a climate change thread is bullshit.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: gillymor
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 03:48 PM

When I consider sentences like "Heroic Human efforts will be to little too late but don't let me stop your Pollyana Party.", I'd say it's leaning more toward the moronic end of the spectrum, but no offense, Don, I know you're a good guy and that you can handle a bit of criticism.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 03:37 PM

I still like the song 'Always look on the bright side of life'
'Always' is just very hard to do.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 03:19 PM

Its a new explanation/theory for the extinctions arising from the Russian traps eruption Steve. The bacteria exist but its still just a theory I used as an example. Stupidity and greed we already know but we don't know the unknown. Whether we are guessing the next flu vaccine or budgeting for a hurricane season its all guesswork.

Who knows maybe we could democratically end the fossil fuel foolery and spend our budget on carbon capture and clean solar, wind and fusion. But would it be enough? I don't know for certain.

I'm sure if I took Oxy like the Trump base I would be less concerned and more hopeful. As for my musings, they are somewhere between genius and moronic. Its not worth caring about and taking any offense is just a figment of the conscious mind. There is a more important mind.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 11:02 AM

"Another unanticipated possibility would be a nickel rich eruption in which bacteria that converts nickel to methane would then deliver the final blow to a run away climate catastrophe."

Dunno about him and his poetry, but the above is total bollix. Nickel is a metallic element with one kind of atom. Ni. Methane is a molecular gas made of nothing but carbon and hydrogen atoms. C and H.   Not exactly interchangeable, huh, even by very very very clever bacteria.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: gillymor
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 10:54 AM

I've reread that last one and it's hard for me to tell what perspective was represented. If I've misinterpreted your intentions I apologize, Donuel, if not I don't.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 10:35 AM

gillymor, many nations of the world are suffering from rising waters and melting ice. A poem that suggests the view from Colonial or First World powers is exactly what is needed here. Contrary to your observation, it represents a great deal of reflection and is not lame. At. All.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: gillymor
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 09:37 AM

Perhaps you should take some time out for reflection, donuel, rather than post lame, useless anti-human poetry(?).

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 09:24 AM

good times
end times
as events grow worse
we all know we're
breathing the curse
We passed the critical point long ago
doing something instead of nothing
feels more hopeful I know
We won't see the death in the deep blue sea
or all the children that will die.
Perhaps we should
We will be able to say
we did what we could

stiff upper lip chap

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 19 - 02:51 AM

Donuel. The unknown is always a possibility but it is no reason to stop any attempts to correct what we do know to be an issue. There is no Pollyanna in trying to reduce co2 emissions or address any other climate change issues.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 11:03 PM

We have always struggled to control our destiny but though we think we may have succeded, fate has the final word.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 10:44 PM

Contrary to scientific evidence we will not be killed by climate change by human hands alone. We will suffocate from the unknown sources of methane and CO2 we do not and can not anticipate.

When these factors occur we will be hundreds if not thousands of years beyond the tipping point.

We were caught flat footed by the melting tundra for example.
Another unanticipated possibility would be a nickel rich eruption in which bacteria that converts nickel to methane would then deliver the final blow to a run away climate catastrophe.

Possibilities known or not will always be possible. Heroic Human efforts will be to little too late but don't let me stop your Pollyana Party.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 06:58 PM

To be clear, I was referring to air temperatures measured (at thousands of locations) over land and sea in both hemispheres.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 06:55 PM

And round and round and round we go...

The correlation between the warming of land and sea in both hemispheres and the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last century and a half is near perfect. A correlation, even a strong one, is not proof, but it is exceptionally powerful evidence, particularly in light of the fact that we know precisely how carbon dioxide operates as a greenhouse gas. To deny that human activity hasn't been a major driver, or even the main driver, of warming is akin to denying that China exists or claiming that there's no salt in the oceans. If you choose to deny it, you are either in the pocket of powerful carbon corporations or you are a fool who thinks that standing out from the crowd by being different just for the sake of it makes you look clever. When we say the science is settled we are not saying that anthropogenic warming is true, because science doesn't work that way. We are saying the probability of its being false is so small as to make it negligible. And to deny it for either of those reasons makes you wicked, because your deliberate ignorance or crass dishonesty is contributing recklessly to increasing a mortal threat to the planet.

But there's always one, as we shall no doubt shortly see...

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 05:29 PM

True, Iains, but humans did little to bring about those climate changes. We can blame those on nature, but it's quite clear that human industry is the cause of this current, very rapid climate change.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 05:12 PM

It tends to be overlooked that climate change has impacted civilisations in the past. In no particular order:

Around 900 CE, things started to go wrong for the Mayans. Overpopulation put too great a strain on resources. Increased competition for resources was bringing the Maya into violent conflict with other nations. An extensive period of drought sounded the death-knell, ruining crops and cutting off drinking water supplies.
More than 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia – the area currently made up of Iraq, north-east Syria and south-east Turkey – the Akkadian empire ruled supreme. Until a 300-year-long drought quite literally turned all their plans to dust.
the Khmer empire of south-east Asia, which flourished between 802 and 1431 CE. It too was brought down by drought, interspersed with violent monsoon rains, against the backdrop of a changing climate.
Even the Viking settlers of Greenland, in the far north Atlantic, are believed to have been affected by climate change. Some 5,000 settlers made the island their home for around 500 years. But they may have had their way of life disrupted by climate change. Temperatures dropped, reducing substantially the productivity of their farms and making it harder to raise livestock. They adapted their eating habits, turning their attention to the sea as a source of food. But life on Greenland became unbearably difficult, leading to the eventual abandonment of the island colony.
The rapid decline of the Anasazi empire in the SW of the US is most widely regarded as being due a great drought, which brought on famine, a theory which would be consistent with archaeological findings of skeletons showing signs of malnutrition, and the abundance of infant and children’s bones.

The link below is quite interesting on the evolution of both the data and interpretation.
https://leilan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/publications/article-specific/weiss_2017_megadrought_collapse_and_causality.pdf

and an interesting wiki article but a bit sparse on sources(unfortunately)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation
If you follow these arguments in depth you realize there are uncertainties in the science but one idea to take away is that if human numbers overwhelm resources the outcome has always been collapse. The frequency of famines in history shows that collapse is never that far away, and the link below should give pause for thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine#Risk_of_future_famine

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 06:36 AM

Good time to remind people that nothing is more important than the future of the planet. Yes, massive changes need to happen and yes an increasing population is an issue but it everyone slows down the use of resources and emission of co2 we can all help to get some breathing space for those big changes. As individuals we may not be able to solve the problem but we can -

Reduce.   Stop wasting energy.
Reuse.    Don't throw it away if someone else can use or repurpose it.
Recycle. For what can't be reused.

Ignore the nay-sayers and petty point pinchers. Do your bit!

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 05:40 AM

Original
From: Stilly River Sage - PM
Date: 28 Sep 19 - 05:02 PM

You must have completely missed the sixties and seventies.

EDITED POST
From: Stilly River Sage - PM
Date: 28 Sep 19 - 05:02 PM

You must have completely missed the sixties and seventies.

Population Bomb. 1971, Paul Erlich.
Why could you not simply say you had overlooked pasting the link?

I queried the original post. It has been deleted and you retroactively edited your original post.
Why not simply admit to making a mistake?

I am very familiar with Erlich's work and also that of the club of Rome and Limits to growth. I have also read works by John Seymour and Patrick Rivers(I bought an AngloNubian goat off him 40 years ago)I also have to claim having watched the good life, although I left my flat In Surbiton some years before the series started.
Their time frame may have been totally wrong but when exponential growth collides with finite resources the inevitable result is a massive contraction. It is a circle that cannot be squared.
This does not even begin to consider the feed back mechanisms set in train.
Deforestation
The projected weakening of AMOC due to increased ice melt and subsequent dilution of oceanic salt in the arctic regions
projected sea level rises due to a warming ocean and accentuated by ice melt.
Climate change
pollution
This of course assumes a contributory anthropogenic component, although in a crowded world natural climatic oscillations, such as caused the little ice age and medieval warm period, would create havoc
The underlying problem always comes back to too many people.
If everyone in the world had the same profligate lifestyle as the average American I think the limits to growth would become blindingly obvious within a very short space of time.
From the Worldwatch Institute:
    The United States, with less than 5% of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25% of the coal, 26% of the oil, and 27% of the world’s natural gas.
    As of 2003, the U.S. had more private cars than licensed drivers,
    New houses in the U.S. were 38% bigger in 2002 than in 1975, despite having fewer people per household on average.
“If the levels of consumption that...the most affluent people enjoy today were replicated across even half of the roughly 9 billion people projected to be on the planet in 2050, the impact on our water supply, air quality, forests, climate, biological diversity, and human health would be severe.”

Today’s human economies are designed with little attention to the residuals of production and consumption. Among the most visible unintended byproducts of the current economic system are environmental problems like air and water pollution and landscape degradation. Nearly all the world’s ecosystems are shrinking to make way for humans and their homes, farms, malls, and factories. WWF’s Living Planet Index, which measures the health of forests, oceans, freshwater, and other natural systems, shows a 35 percent decline in Earth’s ecological health since 1970.
Essentially we are in an ongoing race between man's ingenuity and stupidity. Stupidity is one day going to be the winner unless we are very lucky.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Sep 19 - 03:47 AM

There are those that reckon the world population will top out @ (OK lets be scientific, asymptotic to) 9 billion because..............

As the third world gets richer they will not need such big families.

Which, of course, ignores the old consumption v global weirding dimension.

termite flambé anyone?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Sep 19 - 05:02 PM

You must have completely missed the sixties and seventies.

Population Bomb. 1971, Paul Erlich.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 26 Sep 19 - 05:27 AM

The first graph below is the real problem. But no one has the courage to talk about it.


https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-world-population-comparison-of-different-sources?time=-10000..2000&country=HYDE%203.1+K

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Sep 19 - 04:53 AM

If fixing it ain't fixing it, you ain't fixing it!

Problem solving is an iterative methodology. Or should be.

1) Analyse,
2) try,
3) analyse
4) IF stillbuggered THEN GO TO 1)
5) Coffee (or in day gone by - cigarette)

There are two prongs to solving Global Weirding

1) Change people (best of luck, but ya gotta try)
2) Mitigation. But as I said "We ain't gonna like the............."

Soilent Green? Long Pig anyone?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Sep 19 - 05:53 AM

It does matter though, Mr Red. Using your computer analogy. I was an infrastructure engineer and Unix admin. People would complain that their application was running slowly so we tuned the OS kernel, increased the memory and processing power, upgraded the network and SAN and guess what? It was a piece of shit programming or, more often, a badly administered database. It was usually the software providers in denial. The moral? Make sure you are fixing the right problem!

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Sep 19 - 05:41 AM

That hockey stick that deniers laugh at.

Let me see where else could we find it?
Migratory birds over-wintering - used to happen, now even non-twitcher can see it happening.
Spring arriving earlier. Autumn later.
Storm getting more frequent (forget thresholds for words, storms are stronger and more frequent at every arbitrary threshold).
Power generation.
number of cars/trucks built.
number of plane journeys.
population.
need for the Thames barrage.
etc etc.

Somewhwere in there is cause & effect.

You know when I wus a practicing enjuneer, I never, not, nohow solved a problem by denying its existence. Now I program PCs & Websites and - well you can imagine - denial ain't gonna cut it. Unless you are Apple (first class deniers) - give them a denial year to come clean about their software bugs. Be kind to them, they believe their own hype!

It doesn't fucking matter who caused the problem, JUST GET ON AND FIX IT, Stupid.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 10:20 PM

Well then... onward..

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 07:26 PM

It was a compliment. Feel free to accept it for yourself, Bill, thoroughly appropriate as applied to you, but I actually meant Mossback! It's a mantra remembered from my French lessons of over half a century ago, referring to the need to use the polite "vous," not the informal "tu," when addressing anyone with whom you shouldn't really be over-familiar. Maybe the Pope or the headmaster.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 06:30 PM

I don't read French, but Google suggests that's not a criticism...

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 01:40 PM

Toujours la politesse, Bill! :-)

Your graph, SRS, is an absolutely lovely match for the increase in atmospheric CO2 graph. I'm doing a curry right now but I'll try to find a reference to it when I have a minute. It isn't proof but it's evidence.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Mossback
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 01:13 PM

Mossback had it right, before he was deleted.

Why thank you, Milady

There is no upside to attempting to engage reality deniers.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 12:52 PM

NASA always trumps the protests posed by skeptics. REALLY????? on what basis would that be?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 12:00 PM

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

The most recent date in here is 2015, so the science has been muzzled by the current Flat Earth presidency, but is plenty current enough for this conversation.

NASA always trumps the protests posed by skeptics.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 09:59 AM

"there's a man
goin round
takin names

Johnny Cash"

I first heard that as a Negro spiritual on a Jessie Norman LP in the 80s. It's on YouTube.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 08:00 AM

A supervolcano by definition implies a volcanic center that has had an eruption of magnitude 8 on the Volcano Explosivity Index (VEI), meaning that at one point in time it erupted more than 1,000 cubic kilometers (240 cubic miles) of material. Eruptions of that size generally create a circular collapse feature called a caldera.

The largest eruption at Yellowstone (2.1 million years ago) had a volume of 2,450 cubic kilometers. The impact of such an eruption is not my opinion. It is that of the USGS. Eruptions this large can create their own continental- scale wind field, pushing ash more than 1,000 km against the prevailing, ambient wind field. By contrast Krakatoa only produced 4.3 cubic miles of ejecta. The USGS has the opinion that such eruptions occur over days or weeks. This would require evacuation of people statewide from those areas most heavily impacted. Depending on whether a warning period allowed a response or not, the casualty rate could be horrendous, along with significant
climate change for years or decades. Humanity has not experienced anything close to compare it with.
The climate change postulated by manmade C02 emissions has been in train since England precipitated the Industrial revolution. The dire warnings of anthropogenic climate change are still a reality for the future. As you state the ash eventually falls and wipes out agriculture for years where the ashfall is thickest, andwhile in the upper atmosphere the ash modifies climate dramatically. It is no consolation it eventually falls if famine has devastated the landscape in the interim. As I said earlier, you overlook the importance of timescale. Anthopogenic climate change started several hundred years ago, it's major impacts are in the future. If yellowstone goes bang the impacts is immediate.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/videos/forecasting-ashfall-impacts-a-yellowstone-supereruption

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 06:44 AM

I've just noticed the sickening thread opened by obvios Trump supporters attacking this young campaigner
More child abuse
Jim Carroll

That was the old mudcat troll putting on many hats and naming them for deceased or fake mudcat accounts.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Sep 19 - 05:52 AM

Don't know if anybody saw Greta the Great speak at the UN yesterday
Her obvious passionate concern was really something, but the look of contempt she gave Trump as he entered the chamber was worth a million words
"When I was aye but sweet sixteen"
"WHEN I WAS AYE BUT SWEET SIXTEEN" - if only !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Sep 19 - 09:46 PM

My recreating existing arguments to explain to you is a waste of my time. When articles that make sense are posted I read them. If they're clearly hackneyed opinion, I presume you're not interested in discussion, merely in disruption, and I move on.

If you want to discuss this topic, fine. The back-and-forth nonsense goes, criticisms of moderation never stay in any threads, and bickering is deleted. Keep track if you want, it's your computer space to waste.

If you don't believe this is a climate crisis, and don't want to discuss where scientists and rational people want to go from here, then why are you on this thread? Mossback had it right, before he was deleted.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 19 - 09:45 PM

there's a man
goin round
takin names

Johnny Cash

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Sep 19 - 06:20 PM

Bruce. Don't PM me. Anything you want to say can be said in the open. You still haven't explained who you believe we should be listening to. Greta Thurnburg or Donald Trump? Climate scientists or religious fundementalists?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 19 - 06:05 PM

I saw a little girl shaming world leaders. Then I saw an arrogant, petulant big-baby Trump blanking her as he walked through the room, studiously keeping his back to her. Those images won't be going away any time soon.