PP is far and a way the best doomer site on the internet. (Disclaimer: I have not been everywhere on the internet).
I absolutely reject the notion as presented here that we will have a world of less. We live in a Universe of abundance (at least I do).
There are many bullshit scenarios proposed here for why BTC won’t last. All of which if they come to fruition will result in Mad Max II. Paranoid much?
China has already created an “artificial sun” . Energy is not an issue politics are. Nuclear energy is the answer as CM pointed out. It is doable and safe.
As for ao he makes ridiculous pseudo assumptions about me and my motivations.
Happy New Year and PS. a US CBDC is not going to happen this year. It is happening in China as I type.
Thanks for all the laughs
Well if you aren’t forecasting a world of less, then it is easy to understand why someone can believe that bitcoin will solve everything.
But this future cannot be based on fossil fuels. Or on wind. Or on solar. And you better have some good batteries. And it will take maybe 20 years to retrofit the auto fleet. And all that mining equipment. And I’m not exactly sure how air travel works. But maybe air travel isn’t necessary? Or maybe there is some other way of powering flight other than JP4? Maybe hydrogen something-or-other? Or maybe something from our friends in the flying-saucer land? Post disclosure, maybe we get access to that? If so, bitcoin will be the very smallest innovation we will see.
Ultimately, your rip-van-winkle trade (i.e. where you choose to put your “stored value”) is mostly determined by the scenario you see coming.
I’ve noticed that intelligent people can differ on their views about what is coming next. After all, its tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
Dave,
The “above unity” energy device you speak of exists. It is the Thorium reactor, also known as LFTR (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor). Invented at Oak Ridge, a prototype was built and operated successfully in the 1960s.
Hailed by the scientists as an ideal source of domestic electricity it was, nevertheless, shut down and demolished on the orders of Hiram Rickover, because it did not produce Plutonium for bombs.
The LFTR is melt-down proof and can use the waste from existing Uranium reactors as fuel.
You can read about it here:
https://energyfromthorium.com/lftr-overview/
Or watch a short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
Great old movie about the Oak Ridge experimental reactor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o&t=562s
Boomer41
DaveF,
I so agree that everyone is prepping for the future that seems most likely (or most frightening) to them.
On the topic of a low energy future making BTC mining unavailable–I would imagine that there would be plenty of warning that this future was approaching–rising prices of gas, oil, coal, etc.
In the same way that you use the premiums on large bars of gold and silver to signal market shortages.
Seems to me that one could hold energy intensive cryptos and see ample warning of a low energy state approaching and exit ahead of the point where the world abandons cryptos.
Hi SandPuppy, Best wishes for a Happy New Year
I post this to show some comparisons in France - fire away with questions about the graphs if you need help.
April was the big peak in France up to November 2nd.
The over 65 crowd and more so for the over 85 crowd hve born the brunt.
If you scroll down to figure 6 you can see the “excess deaths by month” - clearly April was the worst month.
Figure 4 shows a break down for different age categories. Clearly the Swedish method - which was brought up in the dialogue - was the best method. We should not allow the economy to be shut down for the under 65.
https://www.ifrap.org/etat-et-collectivites/etude-sur-la-mortalite-2020-comparee-aux-annees-anterieures
I know there’s a popular New Age notion that we live in a world of abundance. And presently, we do. But sometimes we don’t. We have cycled between abundance and scarcity for thousands of years and will continue to do so. Drought and flood, famine and plentiful harvests, Ice Age and warming periods, solar minimums and solar maximums, clear skies and skies filled with particulates from fires, volcanoes, celestial body impacts, man made pollution, etc., and more drive this particular cycle. We don’t have much control over most of these things. The best we can do is roll with the punches by learning to recognize what the circumstances are, what the trend is, and how to best adapt, survive, or perhaps even thrive.
In so far as my “ridiculous pseudo assumptions”, that’s an interesting choice of words.
I’ve learned over the years that the word “ridiculous” carries emotional weight. Someone labels something ridiculous when it makes them uncomfortable. And they typically become uncomfortable due to fear, a fear not uncommonly arising due to an introduction of cognitive dissonance into their life and a possible unsettling of a paradigm they thought was secure and stable. But, of course, that perception of security and stability is an illusion, a comforting one for sure, but an illusion nonetheless.
I have no idea what your term “pseudo assumption” is as compared to an assumption. But any assumptions I made about you were based on what you expressed here. If those expressions were bonafide, then the assumptions should be reasonably on the mark. If the expressions were other than bonafide, then, of course, the assumptions would not be accurate. I’m certainly open to correction about anything I may have unintentionally misrepresented about you.
When I expressed agreement with Mots about a US CBDC possibly arising in 2021, you’ll note I did say it could be a year or two later (or three, but it is coming) Yes, the Chinese are ahead of us with a CBDC, a social credit system, etc. but I doubt very much that we will fail to implement our own in the not too distant future. I can’t see us failing to “compete” with them in this area. The benefits to our government and the power structure are far too great. In fact, I would not be surprised if our controllers were purposely hanging back in this area and letting the Chinese be the beta testers, so they don’t duplicate the mistakes that the Chinese will inevitably make in an experiment of this magnitude and novelty. I know that’s what I would do if I were in their position.
Looking at the bigger picture though, I think much of this will come down to “Man plans, God laughs”. It is fascinating to see how, one by one, with accelerating frequency, prophecies arising from sources as diverse as the Bible, Edgar Cayce, the Plejarens, Native American traditions, and others all seem to be coming to fruition in this epoch. We are privileged to be witnesses to an amazing time in history. One wonders though if it’s better to have front row seats or be up in the nose bleed section for this one.;-) One thing for sure … we won’t be bored.
Dave Fairtex - Thank you on the Bitcoin piece. Very well said. I don’t know this for sure, but my brother who follows crypto a lot says that bitcoin could survive on 20% of the current energy it consumes. Sure, there is a lot of duplicate race for the next coin, but… can the entire ecosystem still function without that race for the next coint. That’s I don’t know.
Dave Collum,
I was only pissed for about 3 seconds. Sorry about that.
I went back and read your items from 2019. Just maybe you might be a little focused on politics? I really don’t follow the politics of climate change at all. I just don’t care. We know it’s bound to happen. There are plenty of good scientists with high levels of integrity, and they are probably more likely to stay away from politics.
Let’s say I was in charge (scary thought, I know), and I put my stake in the sand on “climate change is coming, we better do something”. I tell everyone they need to limit their fossil fuel usage and suffer. Then along comes hundreds of real complex weather patterns that are “inconvenient” to the picture I had painted (even though they may make sense, but are just too complicated to explain to most people). Yes, this would be a political “problem”. So I can fully see the challenges, and thus expect to see behaviors with less integrity.
“I only know what I know, and when I see something that doesn’t make sense, that only proves there is something I don’t know.” - Travis
Climate is a tough nut for humans. It’s so complicated it may be beyond our collective ability to navigate. There are certainly people who have put in that 10,000 hours. But unless we are willing to give them full control over our actions in relation to navigating our climate, then that doesn’t really help.
Unless there is proof these sciences are outright colluding to falsify satellite data, CO2 measurements, and other key finding; then okay, so what.
We should simply do what we do with other industries. Require separation of duties. Have completely separate organizations provide duplication of the studies.
I pulled out these two quotes from your 2019 post:
> “It doesn’t matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
A complex dynamic system like our atmosphere is a little different. You can have some good hypotheses that could be 100% correct, but still very difficult to isolate and prove on their own, and may take hundreds of years of observations to be proven beyond any doubt. For sure it might be wise to not get too hung up on any one climate hypothesis or module.
> “Nobody on the planet—not one person—knows what will happen to the World’s climate and ecosystem 50 years from now. We are all guessing, some more than others.”
Oh, I completely agree.
This is why I got back on, there is no planet B. We humans know we are doing things that are highly questionable and more likely dangerous (36 millions tons of CO2 in 2020, 35 million tons in 2019, etc). Taking the side that we should provide actions are “bad” before we stop them is completely ridiculous. Instead we should ensure our actions are reasonably safe first before we continue doing them. Thus, we should drastically slow down our rate of CO2 release into the atmosphere and continue to study and model our climate system for the next 100 years.
-Travis
The “cycles” narrative form is like many other forms, a short-cut for understanding the universe. Personally I don’t believe in cycles, only spirals. Churning out turnings can help some folks get that dopamine hit we’re all hooked on, so yea mon, “I walk down Portobello road to the sound of reggae I’m alive”.
The Resilience
What the world will look like fifty years from now is utterly unpredictable.
Fifty years ago, I was a young engineer in the electronics industry, designing state of the art communications equipment. At that time something like a smart phone, and the infrastructure to support it, wasn’t just science fiction - it was completely unimaginable.
On the other hand, I believe we can reasonably predict that in fifty years time we won’t be spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the present rate - for the simple reason that oil and other fossil fuels will be either all gone or prohibitively expensive. Which effectively means that the CO2 pollution problem is self-limiting. It won’t continue because it can’t.
You are right, it will take 20 years to retro fit those autos, 4 sure–if all those cars have somewhere to go. Let the (consumer) commuter reformation begin! I have a manifesto! LOL
Of course you know that piece of history is over the way the era of the steam engine and belt drive have ended.
Mark you calendars, BTC $250,000 12/2021 And BTW did you know that a large percentage of the energy used to mind coins is from the excess electricity generated everyday that would otherwise be wasted? just like all that natural gas (methane) lighting up the Permian Basin at night. (it’s so beautiful, I need a hanky)
Bitcoin miners aren’t stupid! They are forcing efficiency on the system. They like to make money too.
Travis,
Sorry that I’m late to the conversation… I was trying to think of a way to communicate without triggering emotional reactions concerning climate change. Boomer41 (post # 109) beat me to the punch. That’s okay.
I’m sure we can agree that the earth has physical limits - not infinite. I’m also sure we can agree that fossil fuels make up an exceedingly small portion of the system. I remember during the '60s reading an article that stated that the USA had enough reserves of coal to last 525 years (based on then-current consumption levels.) In the mid-2000 decade, I read an article basically saying that we don’t have to worry about energy because we (USA) have 325 years of coal left (based on then-current consumption levels.)
So, did we consume ~200 years of coal in ~40 years? Our consumption levels increased, thus reducing the amount in the ground more than was estimated in the '60s estimate and based on that increased annual consumption level, we had fewer years left. Obviously, the 325 yr estimate used the same inadequate math as the 525 yr estimate. I went looking for some recent information and found this:
World Coal Statistics - Worldometer (worldometers.info) Coal left in the world (BOE): 4,309,828,522,168 (January 3, 2021 snapshot from the page's current estimate counter) Coal Reserves 1,139,471,430,000 Tons (short ton, st) 5,458,633,478,739 BOE (barrels of oil equivalent) Coal Consumption 8,561,852,178 Tons (short ton, st) per annum 41,015,519,747 BOE (barrels of oil equivalent) (Data shown in the table are for 2016. Counter shows current estimate.) The world has proven reserves equivalent to 133.1 times its annual consumption. This means it has about 133 years of coal left (at 2016 consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).Their estimate of how many years of coal we have left is based on the same simple math of the '60s and 2000 decade estimates. I'm not sure what current consumption is, but based on 2016 consumption of ~41 billion BOE per year and current estimate of coal left in the world of ~4.3 trillion BOE, we're down to 105 years of coal left in early 2021 (assuming that their numbers and estimates are correct. I was surprised to see such a marked decrease from 133 to 105 in 4 years. Perhaps some of the proven reserves were later moved to a different category. I don't know.) Here's the summary for oil:
World Oil Statistics - Worldometer (worldometers.info) Oil left in the world: 1,486,373,365,793 (January 3, 2021 snapshot from the page's current estimate counter) Oil Reserves 1,650,585,140,000 barrels Oil Consumption 35,442,913,090 barrels per year or 97,103,871 barrels per day Reserves/Consumption 47 (years left) (Data shown in the table are for 2016. Counter shows current estimate.)Here's the link for natural gas: World Natural Gas Statistics - Worldometer (worldometers.info) I'll just cut to the chase and say that as of 2017, there was and estimated 52 years of natural gas remaining based on 2017 consumption and proven reserves in 2017. The estimates are just estimates and subject to fudging for political gain; however, it should be obvious that the amount remaining to be consumed is a finite amount. How long the amount that remains will last is based on consumption levels. For giggles, I put the above oil information in a spreadsheet with a compounding yearly reduction of consumption of 2.4%. If we can do that, we'll (almost but) never run out of oil. Of course, the devil is in the details. How will the reductions be distributed? Who will verify the amount consumed and enforce the quotas? I hope you're realistic enough to recognize that fossil fuels are just too economically valuable to not consume. Does it really matter to your climate-change-model if we cut global annual consumption by half and subsequently consume for twice as long? The same amount of CO2 will be produced either way. It will just take longer. Also, since most of the food is grown using machines that consume fossil fuels, transported with machines that consume fossil fuels, processed with machines that use energy, refrigerated with energy, marketed with energy, and cooked with energy, is it possible to reduce annual fossil fuel consumption by half without starving a significant percentage of humans? You need to address near-term death and misery components associated with a "full-stop" or a "partial-full-stop" before blindly advocating that "feel-good" solution. As the fossil fuel data show, we don't have too much longer to figure this out before we run off the energy cliff. I wish we could start producing thorium reactors. Unfortunately, those who are more concerned with the current doings of the Kardashians simply can't be bothered to consider long term planning. Their votes count exactly as much as ours (in a fair system.) They'll be ignorant until it bites them in the butt, and then, they'll blame those in power for not taking care of the problems. By then, it will be too late. Grover
Grove, great responce. I didn’t know worldmeter had those stats.
>I remember during the '60s reading an article that stated that the USA had enough reserves of coal to last 525 years (based on then-current consumption levels.)
Al Bartlett had explained it well. The rate of compounding from exponential growth quickly shirnks that number.
What those stats are not showing is the EROEI remaining in those supplies. Humans will allows extract the high quallity easy to get stuff first. The half that remains now is all low EROEI.
> Does it really matter to your climate-change-model if we cut global annual consumption by half and subsequently consume for twice as long?
Yes! Because releasing that much CO2 that quickly is a shock to the system. The planet can absorb CO2 over time through various mechanisms.
>is it possible to reduce annual fossil fuel consumption by half without starving a significant percentage of humans?
That’s why I would recommand we prioritize regenerative farming and mob grazed herd animals. See Allan Savory and Gabe Brown. If we take care of our planet first, it can feed us, and soak up a lot of carbon at the same time.
>By then, it will be too late.
That’s exactly where we are headed right now. Climate change isn’t something I can go “oops, let me just undo that”.
Here is the climate condundrum:
-
If the climate scientists are correct, really bad things could happen.
-
There is a small possibility things turn out okay. Maybe we get a nice rain forest in Canada we can all go live happily in.
-
But, if we stop all fossil fuel burning, which ½ of the population gets to stop eating?
-
Climate change many already be set in motion. Maybe there is nothing we can do anyways.
-
If we take action now maybe the worse effects could be averted.
-
If we keep burning fossil fuels then for sure we can keep feeding everyone for a little while longer.
-
Good idea or not, this what we are doing. We are sleepwalking into the consequence.
How about we take a world wide vote? That seems fair in this situation.
Maybe 3 different plans for everyone to vote on.
* Do nothing, keep growing fossil fuel burning.
* 1/2 stop on fossil fuel burning.
* Full stop on fossil fuel burning.
I’m no fortune teller, but I’m willing bet those with fossil fuel consuption will want to keep burning them while those without (aka the poor) will give a middle finger to the other half.
And I’m not nieve about either the 1/2 stop or the full stop. A full stop would be disasterous, and could easily be an 80% die off in the US. I have no idea if my own family would survive. But I personaly think the climate data is concerning enough at this point that we at least do a 1/2 stop. But as we saw with Covid, we didn’t all die back in March. We don’t need to be stupid about it. All that matters is reducing CO2 and putting it back in the ground.
Let’s say we ground all planes. We already know the world didn’t end back in March. Maybe you need a special permit to fly for critical persons or key parts. Ya, sure some rich person will make some excuse they need to be on that list. Just make it transparent, that’s the best we can do. Then lets take all those Boeing and Lockheed engineers and turn them to building thorium reactors. All those layed off aviation workers, well they can make sandwiches for the engineers (I’m half kidding). And the pilots, well let’s build reactor simulators and you can start training to run reactors. Sure, Boeing engineers are not trained for this, and sure their factories are designed plane parts. There will be mistakes, so what. I’m with Greta on this one. Stop making excuses everyone. Get it done. The clock is ticking on this.
Yes, we have some major challenges ahead of us. But by far the biggest challenge we have is that key people are actively resisting change for their own petty reseasons.
Just my two cents.
-Travis
Hint: There is none.
Climate change has been going on on Earth for 4 billion years. It will be going on for a long time after there are no more humans around.
Greta will rule the world in 30 years. You will own nothing. You will rent everything. You will not be eating meat. Everything will be delivered by drone. You will be happy. It will be a world of abundance for some and a world of scarcity for others . Just like it has always been. The more things change to more they stay the same.
I like Yogi Berra too.
No matter what room this woman walks into she will be one of the smartest people in the room.
Millennials get marginalized here. Boomers consistently diss them and have cannibalized them. They are the future. They have a valid perspective which is mostly absent here.
Caution: Watch at your own risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE1iqkQP7-4
I had the opportunity to tour Google HQ in NYC a few years ago. It was quite a revelation. The first and foremost one was there was not one gray hair to be seen. I got there when it was quitting time and I was in the lobby. I sat there as hundreds of Googlers left. They were all Millennials or younger. The people behind your Android are Millennials. The people behind all the social media are Millennials.
They dominate the digital world which if you are reading this you are populating. The NYC complex stretches from 8th Ave to the Hudson River. It occupies complete city blocks. Of course with the pandemic it is probably empty, but it is an amazing construct.
These are the future. The future is now.
Mohammed Mast, I feel so old after watching the “Millennial YIR” video, lol! I got a healthy dose of inter-generational culture shock, that was both eye-opening and educational. I guess I didn’t even realize I had “boomer tunnel-vision” before!
But it was fun, too, to get a glimpse of the world from these Millennials’ perspectives.
Keep 'em coming!
PS Let me add my thanks to you and VT Gothic for the timely crypto educational links over the last several months!
travissidelinger wrote: >I remember during the '60s reading an article that stated that the USA had enough reserves of coal to last 525 years (based on then-current consumption levels.) [Travis' quote of Grover's writing.] Al Bartlett had explained it well. The rate of compounding from exponential growth quickly shirnks that number. What those stats are not showing is the EROEI remaining in those supplies. Humans will allows extract the high quallity easy to get stuff first. The half that remains now is all low EROEI.I'm glad you know of Al Bartlett's work. I was just trying to show a typical result of exponential growth. As an example of EROEI, I have a grove of fruit trees. When the fruit gets ripe, the easiest-to-reach fruit gets picked first. When it is all gone, we'll stretch or jump for the next easiest. Finally, I get out my ladder. By the time I get to the last bit of fruit on a tree, the birds have usually pecked it. Since I typically have plenty, I leave that to the birds. If I were starving, I'd expend the effort to get that last bit. (Look at the Peak Prosperity Logo tree. Imagine which fruit you'd pick first - it wouldn't be the fruit at the tippy top of the tree that takes the most effort to get.) As long as the EROEI is perceived to be positive (more returned than invested,) you can bet that we'll try to harvest. It doesn't matter if we're talking petroleum or fruit. A cheetah makes similar calculations when chasing a gazelle. It boils down to - why expend energy unless the expected reward is worth it? Since fossil fuels have such a dense energy structure, the question boils down to "how much work does it take to get it?" A small, isolated pocket of petroleum deep within the crust will take more energy to extract than could possibly be released. Since the energy reward isn't there, it won't be pursued as an energy source. It might be pursued for its medicinal (or some other purpose) qualities ... if the energy exists to go after it. The bottom line is that we'll extract and consume all positive EROEI fossil fuels. Who gets to do the consuming? I'll touch on that later.
> Does it really matter to your climate-change-model if we cut global annual consumption by half and subsequently consume for twice as long? [Travis' quote of Grover's writing.] Yes! Because releasing that much CO2 that quickly is a shock to the system. The planet can absorb CO2 over time through various mechanisms.I think you're letting your belief that "CO2 is the enemy" cloud your vision. The atmosphere and oceans absorb CO2 emitted from all sources (including human's contribution.) We can and do measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Currently, those concentrations are ~ 415 parts per million. If you look at a graph of recent concentration VS time, you'll see a mostly steady increase over time. How is that a shock? Because you listen to the climate change chicken littles, you probably think that just a little more CO2 concentration will cause the system to tip over into runaway conditions. (Your writings certainly suggest this fear.) If it were completely unprecedented, you'd have a reason to take drastic precautionary measures. Fortunately, the earth has endured much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the past. Early in the Phanerozoic eon (started ~when trilobites first showed up in the fossil record,) atmospheric CO2 levels were approximately 7,000 PPM. Yet, we didn't have runaway global warming. Even if we consumed all the available fossil fuels at once (a real shock,) would we come close to approaching that level? I doubt it. What average earthly temperature would the climate models predict with 7,000 PPM CO2?
>is it possible to reduce annual fossil fuel consumption by half without starving a significant percentage of humans? [Travis' quote of Grover's writing.] That's why I would recommand we prioritize regenerative farming and mob grazed herd animals. See Allan Savory and Gabe Brown. If we take care of our planet first, it can feed us, and soak up a lot of carbon at the same time.On average, we consume ~10 calories of fossil fuels to get 1 calorie of food on the table. Do you think the world can support more than 10%-20% of the existing population without fossil fuels? Could "regenerative farming and mob grazed herd animals" feed New York City's population from local resources? Where would they farm or graze? At what point does a city outgrow the ability for local resources to feed the inhabitants?
Here is the climate condundrum:If they are not correct and we follow their recommendations , really bad things will happen to the general population. Do you really think that Klaus Schwab, co-founder of WEF, gives a rat's ass about you, me, or any of the "great unwashed" who fall in the lower 99% of the economic strata. He wants to bring on the Great Reset by 2030. They're going to be in control and we pay the price. They won't curtail their extravagant lifestyles. They're mainly focused on keep us from consuming their fossil fuels. Do you ever get the feeling that you're being played for a fool?
- If the climate scientists are correct, really bad things could happen.
Yep. That little forest will allow 7.8 billion people to coexist happily forever. </sarc>
- There is a small possibility things turn out okay. Maybe we get a nice rain forest in Canada we can all go live happily in.
That's a really good question. (It will probably be 3/4 or more on the losing end.) Isn't that why people like us flock to Peak Prosperity? So we can figure out how to make the odds work better for us. Once fossil fuels run out, most of humanity will perish. It won't be pretty for most of us. Are you personally responsible for every person on earth? Your country? Your State? Your community? Your neighbors? Your siblings? Your immediate family and self? Just in case you think you're responsible for me, I take full responsibility for myself. At what point do you allow others to reap what they have sown?
- But, if we stop all fossil fuel burning, which ½ of the population gets to stop eating?
In a way, you are correct here. As I've tried to tell you, all the economically worth-to-extract fossil fuels will get dug up and consumed. It only matters by whom and when. There are sociopaths who will use every trick they can to win. That includes lying to us about the pandemic, climate change, etc. That includes shopping for scientists who produce reports favorable to the patron's objectives. (It's the best science money can buy.) You may not be old enough to remember the tobacco companies' scientists claiming there was no link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Why would anyone do that? Hmmm.
- Climate change many already be set in motion. Maybe there is nothing we can do anyways.
"Maybe" and "could" are fine reasons to undertake such a colossal endeavor. </sarc>
- If we take action now maybe the worse effects could be averted.
We sure can. Meanwhile, lots of those people will produce even more people. (It's what we're genetically programmed to do.)
- If we keep burning fossil fuels then for sure we can keep feeding everyone for a little while longer.
You are correct. We're being sold a version of the truth. (That's what the tobacco scientists did as well.) You should look up the "Maunder Minimum," "Dalton Minimum," and the ensuing "Little Ice Age" using your favorite search engine. Isn't it logical to conclude that glaciers will grow during an ice age? What happens when the sun gets more energetic and heats up the earth? Now, suppose that coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution when fossil fuel usage increased exponentially - glaciers will recede and earth's temperatures will rise. What's the true cause and what's simply correlated? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has continually produced forecasts that predict much warmer global climate conditions than have occurred. To their credit, they periodically have an assessment report where they modify models in order to better predict future global climate conditions. They currently are in the 6th Assessment Report cycle (AR6) which was originally due in 2022, but may get delayed due to Covid-19. Their Coupled Model Intercomparison Project has also been updated to CMIP6. One of the notable changes to CMIP6 is the inclusion of radiative forcing (solar activity (beyond total solar irradiance) and cosmic rays.) Papers I’ve seen using CMIP6 parameters show that the majority of cause for the 20th century’s warming was due to radiative forcing.
- Good idea or not, this what we are doing. We are sleepwalking into the consequence.
How about we take a world wide vote? That seems fair in this situation.You've got to be kidding - right? What percentage of the world's population would consider you to be filthy rich and undeserving of your wealth? What percentage would vote to take your property and livelihood for themselves? Would you abide by the results of that vote? Finally (for this post,) you should research some of the failed climate predictions over time. They all have dire predictions that are going to happen in the not-too-distant future - around a decade or more in the future. Remember when Al Gore predicted in the early 2000s that the Arctic would be ice-free by the mid 2010s? Why doesn't he get ostracized for making such a wrong prediction? What did he have to gain by making such a prediction? Oh, that's right. He was selling fear so people would pay to watch his movie. Hmmm. Just for grins, read this short article from 1989: “U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked” Here are the money quotes: “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” “The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.” Let’s see, 30 years from 1989 is 2019. (Usually, they use Celsius for temperature readings.) Did either of these happen? As they stated, that was the most conservative estimate. Why do you still naïvely believe them? Why do you want to force me to comply with their solutions? Have you stopped to ask yourself why they would propose such a solution? (Hint: Who benefits?) Grover
Best conversation I have heard all year on our predicament. Kudos to David and Chris.