"Fewer climate change deniers,
Fewer anti-women's rights activists,
Fewer science cherry pickers,
Fewer Christian nationalists,
Fewer other type of nationalists,
Fewer people."

Thanks Trump. No. Really. Thanks.

The California state water board just announced that farms will receive 0% of their allocation in 2022 from state run sources in both the earliest and lowest allocation announcement.

ZERO. Only the bare minimum for sanitary conditions in many otherwise completely dry communities, up to 55gal per day per person if they’re granted emergency access.

This is on top of the major cuts from sources like the Colorado river, already cut completely from Arizona and Nevada farmers, and with California aquifers rapidly running dry.
California is by far the largest food producing state, producing over 13% of all food in America (by value) and nearly 100% of many staple foods and beverages. Along with the near complete halt to farming in neighboring states, it’s impossible to imagine this won’t dramatically affect both food costs and quality in America for the foreseeable future.

This is inflation due to predicted climate change, @bobknight33 , in case you need someone to blame…and since inflation is suddenly an issue for you. Biden asked for funding to address it, and got not one Republican vote. Clearly inflation isn’t important to Republican representatives unless it’s inflation of yacht prices.

A 2012 United Nations report summarized 65 different estimated maximum sustainable population size and the most common estimate was 8 billion. Advocates of reduced population often put forward much lower numbers. Paul R. Ehrlich stated in 2018 that the optimum population is between 1.5 and 2 billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population

Since we are at or near 8 billion and are far from sustainable, haven’t been for over 50 years, I think the 1.5 number is far more realistic, maybe even high. I think the 8 billion estimates assume international cooperation, constant advances in farming tech with constantly increasing yields (that aren’t happening), and don’t account for climate change disrupting supply chains and production at various levels….so wishful thinking.

War sucks for population control. It’s messy, expensive, destructive of both infrastructure and ecology, and just crap at killing meaningful numbers. We need to reduce by billions, the worst war killed a few million and destroyed much of Europe. A war that kills 1000 times more people….yikes. Forget global warming, hello planetary disintegration.

The only acceptable method IMO is quit having children, then you don’t kill anyone to achieve sustainability. For some idiotic reason, average people find the idea of not having excess children horrific and totally out of the question, but the idea of starving their children to death seems to garner a “shit happens”.

Agreed, we need something like an airborne infectious prion where there could be no vaccine, no sterilization, no escape…..only that would wipe out everyone so maybe not that.

I think the worst part of these summits is their stated goals.
Paris intended to keep warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050 (no real plan beyond then)…but you might recall, 1.5 degrees of warming is considered the tipping point where feedback loops and natural processes outpace human inputs, meaning even if we hit zero emissions by 2050, and if everyone kept to their Paris agreement promises, and if other nations don’t continue to ramp up emissions, and if unforeseen feedback loops aren’t stronger or faster acting than predicted, we still lose control completely by 2050. That’s the best plan we have, runaway climate shifts in <30 years AT BEST….and no one seems to be living up to even that planned disaster of a plan. Emissions aren’t being cut, they’re increasing. Feedback loops are ramping up 40 years earlier than predicted. All the while, people are complaining that gas is over $3 (I haven’t seen it under $4 in decades where I live) and insisting we adopt some heavily polluting power generation instead of investing in green energy solutions. People assume, it seems, that some last minute fix will solve climate change, ignoring the fact that emissions from today are reactive in the atmosphere for between 25 and 150 years, so we needed to be at net zero 25 years ago to even start effecting the atmosphere today…and some emissions from the industrial revolution are still effecting us now. Net zero by 2050 (a pipe dream, and the best plan so far) is planning to fail completely…like turning off the blast furnace in your house when the thermometer hits 450.5 inside and thinking you can stop it from burning down.
If Covid taught us anything, it’s that there is 0% chance humans will be able to cooperate enough to tackle climate change. People were asked to simply wear a mask and distance a bit to save their lives, and enough refused to do it that the methods that worked beautifully elsewhere failed miserably to control a virus. If we can’t pull off such a simple, blatantly obvious plan against a virus, what chance is there of cooperation across the board to sacrifice enormous amounts of money and completely revamp our wasteful way of life in uncountable ways to stop something seen as a future problem by many? IMO, there so little chance of pulling it off that it’s statistically correct to say there’s absolutely no chance at all.

It was pretty disappointing that they didn’t include small generators in these equations. My solar is on my roof, it only uses transmission lines when I make more than I use, and then it stays local. Same thing with small home wind turbines and micro hydro. All these non centralized generation methods are incredibly better than huge farms IMO.

1) No transmission needed, power is generated and used locally.
2) multiple generation methods are tied together, so when it’s dark and solar doesn’t produce, wind and micro hydro are still available vs giant single method “farms”.
3) decentralizing power generation hardens the entire grid, and individual adoptors, against infrastructure attacks. (That alone should sway the climate change denying nationalist crowd to buy in if they could still consider thoughts, sadly they can’t .)
4) barring an emp, the entire grid could not go down and power outages would be limited to tiny areas and be easily repaired in the future.

Good for slightly cooling heat islands (cities) a tiny bit, but unless they require it on every house, building, parking lot, road, anything else dark…it won’t do much even locally. The thought that they could paint 1% of the planet is absolutely insanity. Have they even been to earth? It’s huge, and mostly unpaintable. (and I have serious doubts about that number since way more than 1% of the earth WAS covered with white ice that’s now dark ocean or exposed permafrost, and that has to be replaced before we are back to the earth’s normal reflective value, they’re talking about making it more reflective than it was naturally to reduce average temperatures…good luck).

They seem to completely ignore that it’s only that reflective when brand new, are we going to pressure wash 1% of the earth twice a week to keep it reflecting? I think not, so within two weeks, it won’t be any better than 80% regular paint. What a waste of time and energy.

I’m sure there are excellent applications for such a reflective paint, combating climate change is absolutely not one. Wishful thinking at best.

No. We cannot.

5-10% on the left are radical and fucked in the head. >50% of the right are too. Qmorons are just one main batshit crazy portion. Edit: There’s also the anti science/anti education crowd, all on the right. And the xenophobic racist coward portion, all right wing. Then you’ve got the hyper Christians apoplectic at the idea we might help the poor, feed the starving, or treat others as they expect to be treated. Talk about delusional.

25% of the left are under educated gullible people who just accept what they see on the news without questioning it, 80% of the right are under educated gullible people who accept what they are told by foreign run propaganda channels that put “news” in their name because otherwise there would be absolutely zero news there.
The remaining 20% or less on the right are either struggling in their devil’s bargain, of selling their reputations, honesty, and sanity for temporary political or financial gains…or like my entire family, they’re walking away from lifetime Republican service that included running Bush sr’s Houston election office when he ran for governor.

The Q people….are the right. Don’t 1/2 or more of you believe that nonsense…that Democrats eat babies for eternal youth and magic power, Covid is a sham, vaccines are mind control, Jewish space lasers start wildfires because climate change is a massive worldwide hoax, school shootings are all faked, dead Democrats endorse Trump for king. Yes, wow….that’s half or more of your party…including many of your representatives. Totally certifiable nut jobs.

Wayne Brady biatch!

*promote some *quality facts about our mitigation efforts. Remember, this was going to save us from climate change, but in reality it adds to climate change.

*quality restoration project. Now we just need 10000 more organizations like this and a time machine to get them back to the 70's and we just might have a chance at stopping forest loss. Unfortunately, today, climate change means native flora is struggling world wide, so just replanting them doesn't solve the big issue. You can't be successful at reforestation in a drought.

I didn't edit a thing. You must have added them after I quoted you and obliterated your original post.

There have been no murders in the billions, so I won't bother with your links that must include future climate change deaths if it claims billions killed.

Come on, accuse me of editing out the additions you made to this post I quoted too.

Go troll elsewhere. It's obvious you have no legitimate point and are just making up nonsense to argue.

Duh....install as many high power using carbon sequestering designs as there's room for. Use that surplus clean power to offset some of the enormous dirty power emissions...suddenly there won't be enough wind and water power again.
Too much clean power is only a problem for the completely unimaginative.

He touched on why I've said for 20+ years that it's already too late to stop out of control climate change or save civilization as we know it. Even if we managed to produce more clean energy than we can distribute, switching older polluting technology over to clean energy is a bigger problem than clean generation. Assume we had the ability to power every form of transportation using clean and cheap energy....it would still take decades and tens if not hundreds of trillions to replace the combustion engines alone, with the corresponding new ecological issues of creating, building, and implementing a new power usage method across the board. In order to reverse the carbon trend, we needed an excess of clean energy and the desire to use it exclusively decades ago, because the change over will take decades after the clean power generation ability exists.... decades we no longer have.


Side note, aren't they worried all those wind turbines are going to give them all cancer?

Not having enough oil in your tractor to help put out the fire caused by climate change, of which the greatest contributor is 'transportation', has a certain irony to it.

The only silver lining in this whole goddamn debacle. With any luck they'll immediately become a permanent minority party at the federal level, and at the state level within a few years. Frankly that needs to happen (ideally via voter abandonment of the party, rather than through viral attrition), as the anti-science assclown brigade has made it clear they'll be no help with climate change. It'll be the same fucking pack of lies and denial of obvious objective reality, except with more flooding, fire, extreme winds, and with much less food. It's going to be a clusterfuck of horrific consequences, within a few decades. Unless the anti-sciencers get the reins of power stripped away.

So strange to see Bob posting evidence of climate change since he denies it exists.

An important thing to note is most man made lakes are constantly filling with silt, and that’s not taken into account when determining %. If Oroville is 27% full, but 15% full of silt, it’s only 12% full of water. The older the lake, the more silt has displaced water and lowered actual capacity. Lake Mead is estimated to have 60-90 ft of silt, and based on water level above sea level is about 30% of capacity…but half or more may be silt. As bad as things look, they’re actually worse.

Edit: I would like to see large projects started removing that silt from the dry reservoirs, extending their lifespan and capacity without taking them out of service to do it. Crisis + opportunity = Crisortunity!