Yes, birth rates have fallen, particularly in industrialized countries. Japan is already experiencing the unwelcome problem of too few young people in relation to the number of elderly people. Who's going to provide assistance and care? China will also experience this problem.

But some countries are not headed for the mushroom shaped demographic distribution in the near future (large elderly population on top, narrow stem of young people). France, India, and the United States, for 3 examples, will probably maintain a good age distribution while also growing slowly. However, projecting very far into the future (like 2123) is a very uncertain game, given how global warming might result in significant crop failure, disease outbreaks, intolerable wet-bulb temperatures over large areas, and so on. (The 'wet bulb' temperature is a measure of heat and humidity. At 95ºF, and high humidity, humans can not cool off -- we experience heat stroke. If we don't get cooled off, then we die fairly quickly.)

Carbon dioxide is recycled -- recaptured -- by biological processes, IF -- BIG IF -- the carrying capacity of the planet is not exceeded. Maybe the planet can recycle 100 bmt of carbon in a century without a climate consequence. 100 bmt per decade is 10 times as high, and might exceed the planet's carrying capacity, resulting in global warming. — BC

The oceans scrub about 3 bmt's per year, so I guess you're right. :nerd:

Junior scientist? And you, of course, are a senior scientist? Is that the way we treat each other for just expressing opinions? Not really very mature.

I this retired electrical engineer does believe that the Earth system is cyclic in many ways. Several of these, in their normal movements, affect the atmosphere which, in turn, causes changes.

We humans are a fear based species. We're followers. We are given suggestions and off we go yelling and screaming in the streets. The world is ending. The world is ending. No. I don't buy into the hype. Sure the climate is changing. I disagree about the causes though. I refuse to be sent on a guilt trip over it by the great masses of unschooled lemmings.

I have been toying with solar systems for more than 50 years now, since I was in my peak employment age years. I like using the sun and wind too to enhance my method of living. This is nothing at all to do with fear of climate change. It's about being closer to energy independence. I am not a follower. I walk my own paths in life. I will never be told what to think or do. Never.

I notice in your reply you use all the standard phrases and slogans. Without carbon dioxide our planet would dry up and become a dead rock. But, but, but.... we frantically rave on about the threat it poses to our world. Horsefeathers!!!!

Sure the climate is changing. I disagree about the causes though. — Varnaj42

Several of these, in their normal movements, affect the atmosphere which, in turn, causes changes. — Varnaj42

Yeah, I’m sure the world’s climate scientists haven’t considered “normal movements” or natural variance. You’ve cracked the case.

We humans are a fear based species. — Varnaj42

We’re also a denial-based species, as you demonstrate well.

Are we going to have a contest to see which of us can out insult the other? Is this the price I pay for not agreeing with convention? In a woke world this is certainly true but I also refuse to be a part of that insanity.

Unlike you I have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything. I simply state my opinions. But look at the results? For merely speaking of my beliefs I am subjected to scorn by you.

Climate change is not a matter of beliefs. It's here. I simply say it's a part of the natural cycle of the planet. For that I am ridiculed and cast out of society? Isn't there some little bit of maturity inside of you, somewhere? Why can't you accept that each of us has the right to our own opinions without being trashed through mindless arguments?

"My climate change scientist can beat up your climate change scientist." What drivel!!!

If you're 80 years old, don't you see the same stories played out over and over? Can't you tell where the train will end up by just looking at where the tracks are laid down?

Unlike you I have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything. — Varnaj42

So you just like announcing your unbiased skepticism about a topic you don’t understand. Cool. Maybe I’ll start one about how I think quantum mechanics are woke. I’m equally qualified to judge that field.

No. Not exactly. I am truly afraid. Everything has changed. America is in serious decline and those few who care are openly scorned, or worse, if they speak up. Our children are being violated in every way possible yet we can't seem to do anything about it. If we complain too much we risk a visit by federal police. Can it be true that all three of the branches of our government are now harbors of deceit where honor is a lost quality? It certainly seems so.

Globalism has been around for a long time. It's quickened it's pace though. Mass, instant communications, the entire planet being a "local call" through live streaming has enabled the Gobbels of our day to out do themselves in their efforts to influence popular thought. As a result we are reduced to a need to join one camp or the other. Those of us who remain neutral while trying to speak in rational terms become social outcasts.

None of this has happened before in my lifetime. None of it.

Let me here say something quite controversial. As bad as Hitler was in his treatment of Jews and others who dared to speak against him, the man was capable of profound insights. These are revealed in his signature work, Mein Kampf. He foresaw the threat of globalism in the form of communist thought.

In the recent history of the world, no form of government has resulted in more deaths than communism. In every land that it touches, millions perish through civil strife or as a result of mass incarceration. One thing that globalism is very good at is forcing people to obey.... or else. This is a hallmark trait of communism.

Is this really the world we want to live in?

Never in my time have I seen anything even close to this rapidly unfolding drama which is so threatening. We can no longer even trust our electoral process.

I am afraid that we will lose...

Must you behave like a child?

What’s childish is being an 80-year-old coming to a philosophy forum and declaring that climate change is only “natural,” then chastising people for being “woke” and emotional for believing otherwise.

If you don’t want to be insulted, then stop insulting peoples intelligence. Next time take 10 minutes to learn something about the science of climate change.

Don't worry. Everything is going to be ok.

Yes. In the long run you are correct. But first the Earth needs a serious cleansing. I welcome it.

In the long run you are correct. But first the Earth needs a serious cleansing. I welcome it. — Varnaj42

Good. Ditch the vague appreciation of Hitler though. That's bullshit.

What’s childish is being an 80-year-old coming to a philosophy forum and declaring that climate change is only “natural,” then chastising people for being “woke” and emotional for believing otherwise. If you don’t want to be insulted, then stop insulting peoples intelligence. Next time take 10 minutes to learn something about the science of climate change — Mikie

At 86, and a one-time meteorologist for the USAF - doing weather briefings for fighter/interceptor squadrons and nuclear packed B52s going back and forth to the edge of the Soviet Union - certified by completing a post-graduate curriculum at the University of Chicago - I am probably qualified to speak here.

Years ago climatology was a mostly statistical study and was considered the "basket-weaving" class we took. Many from that generation may have similar opinions of climate science - the modern version. It's much more sophisticated now, but I suspect it has its flaws, and, like quantum theory, these are beyond the realms of common discourse. However, I think what you read from reputable sources is fairly accurate. Where I personally differ is the assumption humans will be able to deflect the consequences to any substantial degree. So it's best to prepare for what is to a large degree beyond our control.

The Earth's movement in our galaxy is beyond our present abilities to alter.

It's not for evesdropping on military sites that the Chinese buy farm lands along the Canadian border with the US. They look long term into the probable future, seeing that agriculture may well move north.

For me the issue is that there is a belief that economy has infinite potential to grow. We always talk about the growth of GDP. And yet we know that resources are finite. And economy is based on resources. So it's impossible to grow indefinitely unless we expand to other planets.

This is totally unbalanced with respect to how nature operates. Nature operates in balance/equilibrium. So destroying it to uphold a notion of infinite economic growth is what is causing a rebound effect - a countering mechanism from mother nature against what is basically "a cancerous growth" - infinite and all consuming - human economy - the pillaging and plundering of resources that work to stabilise the entire system.

Our economic beliefs are making the planet ill. We are pulling the cards out from the bottom of a finely stacked pyramid. And planet earth's immune defences are coming against us slowly but surely. She is getting feverish

Our economic beliefs are making the planet ill. We are pulling the cards out from the bottom of a finely stacked pyramid. And planet earth's immune defences are coming against us slowly but surely. She is getting feverish — Benj96

Sadly your diagnosis is entirely correct, and @Varnaj42 will no doubt welcome the cleansing medicine that Nature will prescribe. But personally I'm not down on the children, I blame the parents.

Where I personally differ is the assumption humans will be able to deflect the consequences to any substantial degree. — jgill

Okay. And that’s worth talking about. But it’s a different animal from what I was responding to.

The Earth's movement in our galaxy is beyond our present abilities to alter. — jgill

Yes— and how is this relevant to climate change?

Lowering CO2 emissions is well within our abilities.

Yes— and how is this relevant to climate change? — Mikie

Milankovitch Cycles

But I see warming acts on the cycles as well. Learned something.

Lowering CO2 emissions is well within our abilities. — Mikie

No argument there. A noble effort if done cautiously with regard to human comfort/misery.

:up:

Climate scientists flee Twitter as hostility surges
^{— AFP via Al Jazeera · May 24, 2023}

Someone's busy.

We have climate denial bots now? This would be funny if the situation wasn't so dire.

Guess Elon is doing a great job taking care of the bot situation.

Gotta wonder how his whole "pander to the right to sell more Teslas to them" plan is working out. Personally I can tolerate the edgelord stuff if it means more EV adoption but personally I'd prefer it if Musk just focused on making cars and spaceships.

Orsnge skies in NY. Living with the effects of climate denial and delay these past 30 -50 years. Thank the Koch brothers.

But our belated move to do something about global warming will at best slow, not reverse, the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so the climate won’t improve — at best, it will get worse more slowly. So for the foreseeable future we’ll be facing ever bigger climate-related disasters. And this future has already begun. Just look up. — Paul Krugman

I'm not a climate change denier. I'm a climate change regulation denier. I believe the best scientific evidence shows that without global cooperation, our efforts at climate change will be futile. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3219914/we-cant-solve-climate-crisis-without-china-head-german-environment-body-says

I do not believe any regulatory system that depends upon universal harmony and peaceful cooperation is worth taking seriously. If we do achieve that utopian state, let's first get Russia out of Ukraine. That seems more pressing than the smoke in New England.

I also think climate change policies will weaken those nations that adopt them economically and politically. We live in a politically hostile world and that weakening will cause more immediate dangers to safety and well being than rising tides.

That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course.

That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course. — Hanover

Then I suggest learning more about the topic. This is pure ignorance.

Then I suggest learning more about the topic. This is pure ignorance. — Mikie

I cited my source for the proposition that climate change policies that are not adhered to by major climate change contributors will not be effective.

Additionally, I presented a judgment, which addresses what I wish to achieve, so it's not a dispute over what the science shows, but what my goals are.

What I want is to maintain economic and political superiority over other nations and my current standard of living. This, along with the fact that great sacrifice in this area by me will be greatly diminished by non-compliance of other nations, and those nations will gain a competitive advantage, I choose to focus on responding to climate change as opposed to stopping it.

To the extent there are token measures that I can engage in to appease my opponents so that they will have less political influence over me, I will do that. That is, I'll drive an electric car and pretend it matters, if that means I can avoid more restrictive efforts.

This isn't ignorance at all. It's an evil to a competing worldview I don't share. I see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity. My effort is to maximize productivity because with that comes greater personal freedom and a higher standard of living. This view predominates, even if it is very counter to your own view, which is why a good part of the world is doing as it's doing.

If the goal is in reducing the environmental impact of humanity in the planet, my focus is terribly flawed. If it's the other goals I've pointed out, it's not.

What's your take on approaches that are less regulatory but promote the research, development, and adoption of green technologies (like with the recently passed IRA in the US)?

I cited my source for the proposition that climate change policies that are not adhered to by major climate change contributors will not be effective — Hanover

This needs a cited source? :roll:

That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course. — Hanover

That doesn't make sense to me. First of all, demand is driven mostly by consumer society "the rich North", which are countries that have managed to align on a lot of policies already. If we change what we allow to be imported, we can effectively change policy abroad without getting those countries explicitly on board.

Second, even if that doesn't work, our behaviour will change the speed at which the climate crisis unfolds, giving ourselves for time to adapt.

Third, a lot of adaptation will already be in place of we start now instead of later, making it cheaper, more manageable and less disruptive.

Fourth, I don't believe where there's an issue that affects us all we cannot find common ground.

As China’s energy transition gathers pace through the expansion of its renewable energy sources – both wind and solar, authorities are faced with the challenge of storing away the surpluses to integrate their supplies into the country’s gigantic power system and ensure grid stability. — Hanover's cited source

We are not having to do it without China. At the moment, we are having to do it without you.