LibertyBell

Thats fine John, I was looking up some of my reading material and just found it..... have a look at these: Here is an excellent piece https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/sunday-review/overpopulated-and-underfed-countries-near-a-breaking-point.html some others https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/talking-about-overpopulation-is-still-taboo-that-has-to-change/2018/06/18/ca7c1838-6e6f-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.10f9f1d1fab7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-continuing-debate-over-population/2017/07/19/85c5f4bc-6b09-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.9cd76cfd419e https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/10/how-will-or-billion-people-eat-without-destroying-environment/?utm_term=.c22851ff04dd here is an awesome piece from Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0594-0 A sobering report published Wednesday in the journal Nature argues that a sustainable food system that doesn’t ravage the environment is going to require dramatic reforms, including a radical change in dietary habits. To be specific: Cheeseburgers are out, and fruits and veggies are in. The 23 authors of the report, hailing from Europe, the United States, Australia and Lebanon, reviewed the many moving parts of the global food system and how they interact with the environment. The authors concluded that the current methods of producing, distributing and consuming food aren’t environmentally sustainable and that damage to the planet could make it less hospitable for human existence. A core message from the researchers is that efforts to keep climate change at an acceptable level won’t be successful without a huge reduction in meat consumption. “Feeding humanity is possible. It’s just a question of whether we can do it in an environmentally responsible way,” said Johan Rockström, an earth scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and a co-author of the study. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/talking-about-overpopulation-is-still-taboo-that-has-to-change/2018/06/18/ca7c1838-6e6f-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.249575592711 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-importance-of-limiting-our-reproduction/2018/06/28/104ea1de-7959-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/sunday/remember-the-population-bomb-its-still-ticking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/paul-ehrlichs-population-bomb-argument-was-right https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/the-violent-side-effect-to-high-fertility-rates https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/asia-must-build-a-less-wasteful-economy https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/empower-women-for-the-health-of-the-planet https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/its-not-a-numbers-problem https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/overconsumption-is-a-grave-threat-to-humanity https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion/18iht-edwesting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/opinion/no-to-population-growth.html https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/population-growth.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/sunday/remember-the-population-bomb-its-still-ticking.html

Thats interesting and true in the sense that sociologically humankind seems to be ignorant to what they are doing, with their brains wired for short term profit not long term sustainability, however we must also look at how being densely populated in cities adversely affects our health, as well as the negative impact on endangered species with humans cutting down trees to build more homes (cutting down trees is also bad for the environment) I do believe we will stabilize our population at some point, the question is, at what point will that be and will we avoid an ecological disaster. Land usage, the consumption of meat and overconsumption in general are also issues. I believe it was stated that the most efficient way to reduce one's carbon footprint is to have one less child. Having one species dominate over the rest seems to unbalance nature and intricate ecosystems. PS have you seen all the smog/air pollution issues going on in India? It's unfortunate that breathing clean air, which should be a right, is so hard to come by!

John, TWC is hosting a climate change debate tonight at 8. I found what Dr Rick Knabb said last night very illuminating. He pointed to a collaboration of research between a few hundred scientists pointing to human overpopulation being the main cause behind all the other things we face (climate change, pollution, mass extinction, land usage, etc.) He quoted this research: https://theconversation.com/11-000-scientists-warn-climate-change-isnt-just-about-temperature-126261

Very well stated John, short term profits are selected over long term sustainability.

They mention a catalyst and also that it's a few years away from commercial development. https://twitter.com/i/events/1191456175449088006 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-04/moth-poulsen-s-energy-trapping-molecule-could-solve-solar-storage The innovations include an energy-trapping molecule, a storage system that promises to outperform traditional batteries and an energy-storing laminate coating that can be applied to windows and textiles. Swedish scientists develop energy storing molecule that can be applied as a transparent coating to windows, houses, cars, clothes and release heat when exposed to a catalyst. Still a few years from commercialisation - but pretty amazing potential if it comes good. Scientists say they’ve figured out how to store solar power for decades, a major energy breakthrough Scientists in Sweden have figured out how to harness solar power, store it and release it on demand in the form of heat decades after it's been captured Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg have figured out how to harness the energy and keep it in reserve so it can be released on demand in the form of heat—even decades after it was captured. The innovations include an energy-trapping molecule, a storage system that promises to outperform traditional batteries, at least when it comes to heating, and an energy-storing laminate coating that can be applied to windows and textiles. The breakthroughs, from a team led by researcher Kasper Moth-Poulsen, have garnered praise within the scientific community. Now comes the real test: whether Moth-Poulsen can get investors to back his technology and take it to market. The system starts with a liquid molecule made up of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. When hit by sunlight, the molecule draws in the sun’s energy and holds it until a catalyst triggers its release as heat. The researchers spent almost a decade and $2.5 million to create a specialized storage unit, which Moth-Poulsen, a 40-year-old professor in the department of chemistry and chemical engineering, says has the stability to outlast the 5-to 10-year life span of typical lithium-ion batteries on the market today. The most advanced potential commercial use the team developed is a transparent coating that can be applied to home windows, a moving vehicle, or even clothing. The coating collects solar energy and releases heat, reducing electricity required for heating spaces and curbing carbon emissions. Moth-Poulsen is coating an entire building on campus to showcase the technology. The ideal use in the early going, he says, is in relatively small spaces. “This could be heating of electrical vehicles or in houses.” A big unknown is whether the system can produce electricity. While Moth-Poulsen believes the potential exists, his team is focused for now on heating. His research group is one of about 15 trying to tackle climate change with molecular thermal solar systems. Part of what motivates them is the Paris Agreement, which commits signatories to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5C (2.7F). Moth-Poulsen plans to spin off a company that would advance the technology and says he’s in talks with venture capital investors. The storage unit could be commercially available in as little as six years and the coating in three, pending the $5 million of additional funding he estimates will be needed to bring the coating to market. In May he won the Arnbergska Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for his solar energy projects. The professor doesn’t have precise cost estimates for the technology but is aware that it will need to be affordable. One cost advantage is that the system doesn’t need any rare or expensive elements. Jeffrey Grossman, a professor in the department of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who’s also developing energy storage molecules, calls the Chalmers University team’s work “crucial if we want to see this energy conversion storage approach commercialized.”

Reposting this here: https://twitter.com/i/events/1191456175449088006 https://t.co/L02Ps9o1UT?amp=1 The innovations include an energy-trapping molecule, a storage system that promises to outperform traditional batteries and an energy-storing laminate coating that can be applied to windows and textiles. https://t.co/krDcakrWmi?amp=1 Swedish scientists develop energy storing molecule that can be applied as a transparent coating to windows, houses, cars, clothes and release heat when exposed to a catalyst. Still a few years from commercialisation - but pretty amazing potential if it comes good. https://t.co/z35BQWGHGI?amp=1 Scientists say they’ve figured out how to store solar power for decades, a major energy breakthrough https://t.co/lNqEF9YcJJ?amp=1 Scientists in Sweden have figured out how to harness solar power, store it and release it on demand in the form of heat decades after it's been captured https://t.co/kqsBusDxWM?amp=1

wasnt that a very strong el nino?

I dont know why some people have so much trouble with this concept. It's not hard to see how the industrial revolution has adversely affected the planet on a variety of levels. Patrick Moore puzzles me, he used to be associated with Green Peace. They kicked him out so he has an axe to grind with the planet? He probably isn't well-versed enough in science to know that higher CO2 means plants have less nutritive value- they lose their content of certain minerals that we need- like zinc and iron.

Funny thing is I was reading some of those posts just before a large gust took out my power here- for 25 hours!

The storm a year later was similar (but more snow for us), very little on the north shore but 8" from the LIE down to here. LIS is too warm for these early season events.

and it looks like this dry west pattern will continue for the foreseeable future!

paid for lol- you do realize you are talking about the fossil fuel CARTEL?! it's just as corrupt as the tobacco CARTEL or the pharma CARTEL or the ag CARTEL or the Colombian drug CARTEL ever were.

It's amazing that some people make the same "arguments" they made decades ago, they are just as invalid now as they were back then and are the reason we haven't made progress.

all you need to see is the trend from how the forest fire season has evolved from a short season to a year long occurrence.

The interesting thing is we were pretty well certain about this even back during the 80s. Actually if you want to go even further back, Exxon's own scientists were aware of it in the 70s, but just like the Tobacco industry, they suppressed the research (which is part of the reason they are considered a cartel and not an industry.)

About the same here in Nassau County. We needed the storm to be a bit further east.

Damn, if that storm had tracked a bit further east we all would have been buried!

Unfortunately there are "scientists" who do this; I was researching cosmic rays and mass extinction events and found that there is a scientist who actually says cosmic rays are the main cause of current climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Postulated_role_in_climate_change A role for cosmic rays in climate was suggested by Edward P. Ney in 1959[100] and by Robert E. Dickinson in 1975.[101] It has been postulated that cosmic rays may have been responsible for major climatic change and mass-extinction in the past. According to Adrian Mellott and Mikhail Medvedev, 62-million-year cycles in biological marine populations correlate with the motion of the Earth relative to the galactic plane and increases in exposure to cosmic rays.[102] The researchers suggest that this and gamma ray bombardments deriving from local supernovae could have affected cancer and mutation rates, and might be linked to decisive alterations in the Earth's climate, and to the mass-extinctions of the Ordovician.[103][104] Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has controversially argued that because solar variation modulates the cosmic ray flux on Earth, they would consequently affect the rate of cloud formation and hence be an indirect cause of global warming.[105][106] Svensmark is one of several scientists outspokenly opposed to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, leading to concerns that the proposition that cosmic rays are connected to global warming could be ideologically biased rather than scientifically based.[107] Other scientists have vigorously criticized Svensmark for sloppy and inconsistent work: one example is adjustment of cloud data that understates error in lower cloud data, but not in high cloud data;[108] another example is "incorrect handling of the physical data" resulting in graphs that do not show the correlations they claim to show.[109] Despite Svensmark's assertions, galactic cosmic rays have shown no statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover,[110] and demonstrated to have no causal relationship to changes in global temperature.[111] Unfortunately this denialism shouts down the very real possibility that a supernova explosion induced cosmic ray barrage caused a relatively recent mass extinction event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Possible_mass_extinction_factor A handful of studies conclude that a nearby supernova or series of supernovas caused the Pliocene marine megafauna extinction event by substantially increasing radiation levels to hazardous amounts for large seafaring animals

Thought I should post this update, especially with the recent historic forest fires all over California and now in Los Angeles! https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1188160398320656385 The climate science is settled on direct causal links to California wildfires. Whether it is drier droughts, or whiplashes to wetness, the jet stream is acting freakishly. The fingerprints of climate change are all over this current event. https://t.co/avouF71zBo?amp=1 https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Scientists-see-fingerprints-of-climate-change-all-13128585.php

I am sick and tired of excuses being made for these "developing nations" Time to punish them financially for relying on outdated, polluting technology. Also, oil and nat gas are contributing factors, especially with the fracking "boom" contributing to methane leaks. Nuclear would be a far better option.

Skip 1995, I was hoping you'd say either 1994 or 1996

Well have a look at the Euro LR maps, Ray, they look like they're forecasting January to be below normal snowfall. Maybe normal snowfall for some areas. February is when they're depicting well above snowfall. https://bennollweather.com/ecmwf https://www.bennollweather.com/ukmet UKMet has a better snowfall distribution.

I was thinking backloaded winter too, with the "back load" starting later- perhaps in the first week of February?

The 2030s are when the Great Barrier Reef is predicted to be completely gone- to the massive detriment of the marine ecosystem!

This is going to be a bit OT but did you see the new research on the dinosaur extinction asteroid? The new research indicates that oceans quickly acidified killing sea life on a global scale rather quickly. I wonder if climate change induced ocean acidification could do something similar?