A little light reading!

[Mountain Man]

As you do not accept the predictions for climate change you do not need to worry; You've "Got fuel to burn got roads to drive".

Is my point really going over your head? I'm not worried about catastrophic climate change because there is no evidence to support it, but I am worried about certain "climate change" policies being implement that will dramatically decrease the quality of life for the average person -- at the moment, we are looking at decreased access to food and energy -- while the elites will continue their limousine and Lear jet lifestyles without a care in world.

[Gondwanaland]

I made it clear which were quotes from the available text and which was the comment by one reviewer.

The only difference being there were fewer humans involved and of course the results were not always particularly pleasant for those who were around.

The other difference being that we are far more technologically advanced and capable of adaptation than those fewer humans.

Recorded human history is around 7,000 years. That is not a particularly long period. Certainly we survived as species' for some time prior to that but I doubt many in the industrialised nations relish the thought of going back to hunter-gathering.

Who said anything about going back to hunter-gathering?

Nor of course is the natural world in the same state today as it was [for example] 30,000 years ago and the present human population is somewhat larger than at that period.

Thank you for proving my point.

Then the industrialised nations carry on at the expense of millions of others?

It's largely China and India that are the polluters of the world so perhaps talk to them. Oh and of course the developing nations that need fossil fuels, etc., in order to improve their lives.

That is a rather over-stated comment. We will "always" adapt? Furthermore technology is in the hands of a relative few. I doubt many here could build their own computer from scratch - and I do not refer to simply purchasing the constituent components.

Yes, we will. We're literally the only species that has adapted to live in literally any environment on the planet (and is pretty close to being able to do so off the planet). Not sure what your irrelevant rant about technology has to do with anything I said. How absurd.

I think the general tenor is to provide an optimistic commentary if certain policies are adopted.

You think the forecasts are over-stated?

Very much so. They have been for decades. The models can't even predict past events, and have the problem of predicting more warming than happened observably in the last several decades. It's junk science.

That remains to be seen.

It has been seen. Over and over.

What climate change modelling have you been personally involved with?

I don't give personal information to weirdos on the internet.

[Esther]

Save your money and don't buy this book.

Worshiping at the shrine of Climate Change seems to be the new religion.

[Gondwanaland]

Those in Kentucky were certainly not the "elite". From my reading of that latest disaster that region is comparatively poor. However, think of all those wealthy individuals who have residences on the coastal regions of the US Eastern seaboard!
And what about the Hamptons or Manhattan? They are only islands!

What's that? People near a river experienced a flood? Wowee, that never happened before fossil fuels were burned, did it?

Newsflash: natural disasters happen all over the place, and have since before humans even existed.

[One Bad Pig]

That right there, given what we've seen on the overplaying of the severity, makes me doubt his credibility.

It tells me that I have better things to do than read his book. If I want to read fantasy, I'll read LOTR; at least that'll be entertaining.

[Gondwanaland]

and what we are experiencing now with very hot weather.

Well you have fun with that.....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...-solar-panels/

Weather ‘too hot’ for solar panels


Power output during heatwave drops below levels typically reached in spring


The weather was too hot for solar panels on Tuesday as soaring temperatures reduced their efficiency.
As the heatwave pushed the mercury above 40C for the first time ever in Britain, solar output remained well below the levels usually reached at peak times in spring.
Modelling data from the University of Sheffield suggests that solar energy provided an average 2.8 gigawatts of power on Tuesday.
Meanwhile in spring, when the weather is cooler and generation peaks, it typically accounts for 3.3 gigawatts, according to Josh Jackman, researcher at The Eco Experts.
Solar panels become less efficient when temperatures rise above 25C, meaning energy generation drops off, with efficiency decreasing by around 0.35 percentage points for every degree above this level.
Professor Alastair Buckley, of the University of Sheffield, said: "We never see peak output in mid summer.
“The temperature of the actual solar cell depends on a combination of the ambient temperature and the radiative heating from the sun and also cooling from wind. We saw cell temperatures of 70 degrees yesterday on our test system. Normally it would be between 40 degrees and 50 degrees."



Tim Dixon, analyst at Cornwall Insight, said: "The efficiency of solar panels is impacted by temperature, with high temperatures above 25 degrees negatively impacting on performance. It is likely that the extreme temperatures have impacted total output levels."
Chris Hewett, chief executive of industry group Solar Energy UK, said the current weather was "good for solar energy generation" but that the heat "brings down the efficiency of the panels slightly".
Mr Jackman said that solar panels would be performing better in a heatwave than during a spell of cloudy weather despite their limitations at higher temperatures, and that the technology would normally achieve an average efficiency of around 85pc in a year.
He said: "Obviously this is incredibly unusual, but they are generating about 20pc of the UK grid's electricity today.
"If it was a cloudy day, they would also be suffering. Losing 5pc of efficiency sounds bad but on a cloudy day you can lose anywhere from 25pc to 66pc depending on how cloudy it is.
"So actually it's better for it to be too hot than for it to be cloudy.
"They are only at maximum efficiency quite rarely. But who among us is ever at maximum efficiency?"

[NorrinRadd]

Something interesting that I have read lately that pertains to this thread is that the powers that be in the world of academia are proposing the Anthropocenic Epoch as a scientifically legitimate age of the Earth's geological timeline of epochs, or ages. There is much debate over actually adopting this view, as you could imagine. This age would date from the commencement of human impact on the planet. It's quite likely that the idea of this geological epoch will be in the curriculums of schools soon.

I don't know a whole lot about about science, or the atmosphere, but if it were up to me, that is, if I ruled the world, the first thing that would stop, as in, cease and desist immediately, would be the deforestations of rainforests. Period. There would no more. It would all halt today, this very minute. It would be a good first step I would think. I do think that it's a good idea to protect the planet, so long as it's truly protecting the planet and the planet's ecosystems.

All the plastic in the ocean bothers me too.

Well, now I've gotta do this. (LANGUAGE WARNING!)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The other difference being that we are far more technologically advanced and capable of adaptation than those fewer humans.

Our technology is in the hands of a very few. Most people do not understand it..

Who said anything about going back to hunter-gathering?

The reference was to the state in which humans have existed for the longest period

Thank you for proving my point.

What point?

It's largely China and India that are the polluters of the world so perhaps talk to them.

They are among the industrialised [and industrialising] nations. Both nations also have very large populations.

Oh and of course the developing nations that need fossil fuels, etc., in order to improve their lives.

Fossil fuels will not be around for ever.

Yes, we will.

I admire your optimism that human beings will go on and on and on.

We're literally the only species that has adapted to live in literally any environment on the planet

That is true but again you are looking back to the distant past when human populations would have been much smaller and were prone to predation, as well as injuries and disease that today are treatable, or at least kept in check.

That situation is therefore not strictly comparable with the industrialised societies, their populations [and the expectations of those populations] of today.

(and is pretty close to being able to do so off the planet).

That also remains to be seen. And again, if humans ever do colonise Mars it will be done by those with the requisite technological skills. Not the general populace.

Not sure what your irrelevant rant about technology has to do with anything I said. How absurd.

Please do not resort caricaturing what I have written. Up to this point we have succeeded to have a relatively "civilised" exchange.

Very much so. They have been for decades. The models can't even predict past events, and have the problem of predicting more warming than happened observably in the last several decades. It's junk science.

For someone involved in Earth Sciences I would have hoped for something a little more substantial.

Perhaps a brief and informed synopsis of your own thoughts referencing some of those models, and an explanation [premised on the science] that offered some valid reasons as to why why you consider them to have been less than successful.

I don't give personal information to weirdos on the internet.

I was not asking for personal information.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Is my point really going over your head? I'm not worried about catastrophic climate change because there is no evidence to support it, but I am worried about certain "climate change" policies being implement that will dramatically decrease the quality of life for the average person -- at the moment, we are looking at decreased access to food and energy -- while the elites will continue their limousine and Lear jet lifestyles without a care in world.

There is evidence we are starting to witness changes and the impact of positive feedback - as yet we cannot know the precise extent of what that might entail but it is being observed.

https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/feedbacks

https://skepticalscience.com/Empiric...-feedback.html

If people wish to dismiss such sites as nonsense, that is of course, their prerogative.

[Machinist]

Interestingly, there is a good deal more forested land in the U.S. now than there was a hundred years ago. Still, a fraction of what it was 400 years ago, but forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s with the tree planting efforts that were started in the 1950s really paying off.

"But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.

And man-made forests do not compensate for the damage and degradation done to ecosystems through land clearance."


Here's the article that this came from. It's by... none other than...the World Economic Forum!!!!! So we know it's not biased, right?

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...-35-years-ago/

Seriously though, I think this article has some good points. What are your thoughts?

[Machinist]

Well, now I've gotta do this. (LANGUAGE WARNING!)

I'm trans to save the rainforest. And i've been known to nuke baby gay whales for Jesus.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That right there, given what we've seen on the overplaying of the severity, makes me doubt his credibility.

You are premising you comment on a misconception by CivilDiscourse. McGuire makes no mention [at least on the portions of his text available on Amazon] about conspiracies.

Nor do I imagine a man of his academic background would engage in such contentions in, albeit a popular, science text.

Furthermore what evidence can you produce that you consider doubts his credibility, particularly if you have only read what is available from his latest book, courtesy of Amazon?

[rogue06]

“Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice. ” - Will Durant

Cosmic consent as well.

[Machinist]

Cosmic consent as well.

I do hope and pray that the asteroid currently hurdling towards Earth lets us be.

[rogue06]

Ther is, but not remotely of the quality that there was. Most of it is uniform replanting of one or two tree types (usually with an eye at cutting them down in the future). Most of these 'new' forests are artificial and lack biodiversity and similarly lack the habitats for animals that old growth forests provided. There are a rare few foresting companies that have made biodiversity and age a priority and will leave many trees in place while harvesting, but they are few and far between.

You can't have an old growth forest in a century.