Expert prognosis for the planet

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ

See the Nordic Bronze age for reference. Grapes could be grown in Scandanavia during this time and it appears the climate in Scandanavia was similar to what it is today in German and France. Water levels where indeed higher during this time as well. Then see the Germanic migrations that appear to be driven by the ebbs and flows of climate change over thousands of years. Another example here is the ebb and flow of the sea in and out of what is now the Netherlands where the Frisians settled, left, and resettled. It goes on and you are free to find more of other historic peoples' migrations related to climate change, naturally occurring climate change.

You are confusing local climate to average global climate (see attached picture and study below).

What caused this local warming trend and subsequent cooling? See the following links:

https://virtuallaboratory.colorado.e...20collapse.pdf

https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/11/m...not-so-random/


The average sea level rise was already discussed below, but if you want to talk about local sea depth in that area then read the following journal article. That area of the Netherlands is characterized by a very flat and low sea depth, and like sand dunes changing with wind and altering the landscape of a desert, that area has seen tidal changes and seafloor changes, which are highlighted extensively in the following study:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...B5B650E65D30A#

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=486



Humans have migrated to find food and water or escape war or tensions or because they were displaced from natural disasters like volcanoes, floods, droughts, etc. They may have migrated over decades, centuries or millennia due to local climate change too or during other periods that were far less globally stable than what we have seen up until recent. You need to try to say and show more than just saying, 'people have migrated in the past due to the climate, thus abrupt climate change happens naturally, and therefore, anthropomorphic climate change doesn't exist.' Scientists are saying we are causing the changes we are seeing now. Scientists are using science to describe the climate of the past, which you are using against them to say, 'they know about the past, but don't understand the present or future.' Doesn't that seem a little odd to you that you trust the climate science of the past, but you don't trust the science talking about the climate of the present?

Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ

You are presenting what first year college students can put together, nothing more.

Or what high schoolers or middle schoolers can put together. A superficial understanding of the science is all that is necessary to explain what scientists are demonstrating related to the misconceptions you are presenting. You clearly haven't reviewed this entire thread because your talking points have been discussed. You aren't offering anything new.

Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ

There is a big difference here. Weather forecasting can be considered real science because models can be tested with weather events and then refined with new data, over and over and over. Climate change models cannot and live solely in a simulation tied to extremely loose correlation to some observations ignoring other anthropological facts that literally slap the premise in the face. But it's the soup of the day, so...... Real sciences seeks to prove a premise or model wrong until there is no other direction than the refined premise having to be correct bc there are no other options.

This is false. Climate models that are being used to predict the future are verified by trying to model the past. In case that is confusing, let me explain. Scientists put in data from the present and from recent trends to model the future. They verify the validity of their models by putting in data from the past, and low behold, their models correctly correlate to past measurements. Specifically, if they feed in data on average CO2, solar radiation, volcanic activity, plant profiles, etc. and input all this data into their models, the models predict average global surface temperatures accurately, so then they apply them to current data, and we get future predictions.

Besides this fact, Captain Snooze's article is highlighting the obviousness of the future: there is a train running down a track, and it has a massive amount of inertia, so it is going to be hard to stop or divert without a lot of work, so it is no surprise where it is going to go when very little effort is trying to stop it. There might be a lot of talk about how to stop it and a lot of research about how to stop it, and some people have even started to try to stop it, but a few people aren't going to stop a huge train. The climate models have a clear trend line, and we have seen what impact current changes are doing and where we are headed, and the models are predicting in nine years we will be passing 1.5C. I guess we will see if they are right in nine years.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

Weather changes before the industrial revolution can't be compared to post industrial revolution.
Pre = Nothing really changed on the large scale.
Post = Lots has changed.

The most that can be done is educated guesses.
The main goal is to go back to how it was before the industrial resolution.
But as some have said it may be to late for that.

Like I said before. We fucked.

Just for clarification: the climate has changed a lot through the eons, and the planet has been much hotter and much cooler than the present, with and without life, and with and without mammals, and with and without apes. Because of this fact, anthropomorphic climate change deniers often cherrypick periods, while ignoring the current evidence of anthropomorphic changes. These arguments go something like:

-(First it was) Weather always changes, and see, it is cold over there, so climate isn't changing (confusing local weather with global climate).

-(Then it was) Climate change has happened in the past, so it could be happening naturally now, and (they assert) scientists lack the ability to differentiate between natural causes and anthropomorphic causes of climate change. See:




-(Getting more like this lately) Even if we were causing climate change, it isn't a big deal because we have lived in hotter times before, so we could survive. Around 5-10 million years ago we parted with chimps in our evolutionary history, and we were in warmer times, yet mostly cooler times since then. We even managed with eight degrees cooler just 18k years ago. Climate change is in our history, so we will manage fine, and the planet will be conducive to life like it has in the past despite the rise in temperatures or greenhouse gases.





This is the "Pre vs Post" graph you are probably referring to, but without clarification, I just wanted to show how your statement would likely lead to those other typical arguments.

[Irace86.2.0]

I keep seeing Elon Musk repeating the concept that the earth can support a lot more people, and he keeps advocating people to have more kids. He claims he has a lot of kids because this is a major problem. Of course, he points to the most extreme examples like Japan with its inverted population pyramid, and there is some validity to this example because it is where many places could be one day. He said the world is in a population decline, and he thinks the UN reports are wildly inaccurate. Well, the UN says we added a billion people in the last twelve years and will have another billion in around fifteen years, for a total of 9 billion.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/11367...new-u-n-report

While some countries will see population decline, others will be overtaking countries even if those countries don't decline like India overtaking China and Nigeria overtaking the US, so the globe is likely to expand in the poorest countries. Typically the poorer the countries, the more likely they are to have shorter lives and large families, but there is also this goldilocks zone where people are too poor to afford to live at the means of their peers or the means they expect to live, yet make enough to not be dependent on kids for labor. This is where the US is where raising kids is expensive and money is relatively tight for most in the middle class compared to the past.

The top 1% has taken $50 trillion from the bottom 90% since 1975. Before then, wages grew with GDP, but after 1975, wages grew at the rate of inflation, which is to say they didn't grow at all. If the top 1% had shared those corporate profits, and the middle class had been paid at the rate of GDP then the median worker would be making $48k-63k a year more, which seems to me like money that could be used for having kids, so if Elon Musk wants people to have more kids then they need to be home more and have more money to do so, or they need to be starving farmers who need children to work the farms.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion...ality-america/

With that said, how many more mouths can the world support? We are already depleting the oceans, clearing all the land to raise livestock and feed livestock, clearing land for food too, and we are consuming a lot of resources. The rest of the world wants to consume as much as the US, and they are actively working to match the standard of living of the modern world. How much can the earth support?

This isn't an easy answer. Resources change over time. Technologies improve our yields of crops, while they can also deplete our resources. For instance, before synthetic fertilizer or synthetic nitrogen production, the world would probably already be unable to support as many people as it does. If you are not familiar with how nitrogen generation changed the world then it is worth looking into. Who knows what will come along that will deplete or enrich our resources.

https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-...ertilizer-feed

Regardless, I thought these were interesting. Looking at the map of the US, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of extra space for any type of growth unless we get off of these cows:






I know what you are thinking. Screw this. He doesn't know what he is saying. There is more than enough land for everyone. If everyone had their own equal plot of land then I'm sure there would be plenty. Well, there is 57 million square miles of land and 8 billion people, so there is less than a square mile per person, so let's convert to acres, and we get 36,480 million acres or 36 billion acres, but there are some parts of the land that are ice, desert or mountains, so there is actually only 16 billion acres of "habitable" land, but lets just say 36 billion acres anyways. Well, that leaves about 4.5 acres per person.

Some might think that is a lot of living space, but on that lot you need space to raise crops, chop wood, raise livestock, have a water well, dispose of trash and sewage, have a strip of road to drive on, generate electricity, have an oil well, etc. You would need to make a little room for visitors to a state/national park area for wild animals and protected species. Elon Musk says the world can support billions of more people...many times more. Doing the math, he seems delusional.

[Spuds]

Can't list tuners for sale on ebay anymore.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a4...-tuning-parts/

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Can't list tuners for sale on ebay anymore in the USA.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a4...-tuning-parts/

Ftfy.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Ftfy.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I can be pedantic at times. I did check Ebay AU for before posting.

[Irace86.2.0]

[Irace86.2.0]

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...ears-kpmg.html

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...ears-kpmg.html

i've been saying that since the beginning of the ev push.

i'm not opposed to alternatives, and agree gasoline isn't the greatest way to power vehicles, but this all-out war of 'ev and drop everything else' just reeks of ending poorly.

it's funny, in my area, we've suddenly had a few electrical jobs where californian's move back to the midwest. without ever meeting the people, i can always call out where they're from and what they expect just reading the text of the job specifications.

anyone that lives in the midwest generally uses natural gas for cooking, and heating, always has. many of our power lines are above ground on poles, and subject to our weather. any serious midwesterner has a natural-gas powered backup generator.

all these californian's are coming back and renovating houses, but installing 100% all electric appliances and heating, with electric car charging, many times without backups...

guess who we end up going back to later to install a backup generator for later on when they lose power in the dead of winter...

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

absolutely ludicrous that there's such a strong prediction from execs about apple leading the EV market

lmao

EVs need max weight and max power restrictions asap, among many other things that were just said above

[Irace86.2.0]

Sweden Says It Has Uncovered a Rare Earth Bonanza

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/13/b...-minerals.html

A state-owned mining company announced it had found Europe’s largest deposit of the vital minerals used in electric vehicles and other green technology.

[soundman98]

is this where we revolt against them taking away our gas fired ovens?