The Die Off

[SSDD]

Have you studied the exact parameters of this particular model on exo-civilizations? Then it is hard to say how right or wrong it is

Where did you OBSERVE these civilizations to obtain the empirical evidence necessary for any model to work?

I would like to know how they find data out of hypothetical fantasies?

In climate pseudoscience, made up data supporting hypothetical fantasies is simply the way it is done.

 

[Crick]

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2017.1671

 

[Crick]

There is no such thing as a "highly advanced climate change computer model". They do not exist.

Don't make the mistake of thinking anyone else is quite as stupid as you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A recent highly advanced computer using state of the art climate models for how an exo-civilization might evolve lead to some surprising results that civilizations tend to fall into one of three outcomes and that sometimes it did not matter what they did to try to change the consequences. You have to read pretty far down into the article, but a summery of what the models showed was that they saw three distinct kinds of civilizational histories. The first—and, alarmingly, most common—was what we called “the die-off,” which parallels what I have been thinking and saying for 40 years. As the civilization used energy, its numbers grew rapidly, but the use of the resource also pushed the planet away from the conditions the civilization grew up with. As the evolution of the civilization and planet continued, the population skyrocketed, blowing past the planet’s limits. The population, in other words, overshot the planet’s carrying capacity. Then came a big reduction in the civilization’s population until both the planet and the civilization reached a steady state. After that the population and the planet stopped changing. A sustainable planetary civilization was achieved, but at a high cost. In many of the models, we saw as much as 70 percent of the population perish before a steady state was reached. In reality, it’s not clear that a complex technological civilization like ours could survive such a catastrophe.

In many ways we were seeing a kind of cosmic Easter Island play out. There may have been as many as 10,000 people living on Easter Island at the peak of its stone-head-making heyday. But by cutting down all the trees to roll the stone heads around, that civilization seems to have mucked up its ecosystem and sealed its own fate. When the Dutch arrived in 1722 only a few thousand folks, living greatly reduced lives, were left.

The second kind of trajectory held the good news. We called it the “soft landing.” The population grew and the planet changed but together they made a smooth transition to new, balanced equilibrium. The civilization had changed the planet but without triggering a massive die-off.

The final class of trajectory was the most worrisome: full-blown collapse. As in the die-off histories, the population blew up. But these planets just couldn’t handle the avalanche of the civilization’s impact. The host worlds were too sensitive to change, like a houseplant that withers when it’s moved. Conditions on these planets deteriorated so fast the civilization’s population nose-dived all the way to extinction.

You might think switching from the high-impact energy source to the low-impact source would make things better. But for some trajectories, it didn’t matter. If the civilization used only the high-impact resource, the population reached a peak and then quickly dropped to zero. But if we allowed the civilization to switch to the low-impact energy resource, the collapse still happened in certain cases, even if it was delayed. The population would start to fall, then happily stabilize. But then, finally and suddenly, it rushed downward to extinction.

The collapses that occurred even when the civilization did the smart thing demonstrated an essential point about the modeling process. Because the equations capture some of the real world’s complexity, they can surprise you. In some of the “delayed collapse” histories, the planet’s own internal machinery was the culprit. Push a planet too hard, and it won’t return to where it began. We know this can happen, even without a civilization present, because we see it on Venus. That world should be a kind of sister to our own. But long ago Venus’s greenhouse effect slipped into a runaway mode, driving its surface temperatures to a hellish 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Our models were showing, in generic terms, how a civilization could push a planet down the hill into a different kind of runaway through its own activity.

Bottom line: instead of blaming man and calling for all kinds of draconian sacrifices to save the planet, these studies along with my own thinking for a very long time is that the real key to saving humanity and the planet lies less in how mankind lives and works, and much more so in how well we control our population. If we want to save the planet and mankind, I think we need to work towards cutting world population down by about 33% from what it is today.

How Do Aliens Solve Climate Change?

The entire population of the earth could fit comfortably in the state of Texas, with plenty of living space and parks.

Over population is a myth that failed in the 1970's.

The entire population can fit in the State of Rhode Island shoulder to shoulder, so yea, it is a myth.

True.

I need to dig it up, but every man, woman, and child on earth could be given a 1,000 square foot lot in Texas and there would be excess land when it was done.

 

[toobfreak]

A recent highly advanced computer using state of the art climate models for how an exo-civilization might evolve lead to some surprising results that civilizations tend to fall into one of three outcomes and that sometimes it did not matter what they did to try to change the consequences. You have to read pretty far down into the article, but a summery of what the models showed was that they saw three distinct kinds of civilizational histories. The first—and, alarmingly, most common—was what we called “the die-off,” which parallels what I have been thinking and saying for 40 years. As the civilization used energy, its numbers grew rapidly, but the use of the resource also pushed the planet away from the conditions the civilization grew up with. As the evolution of the civilization and planet continued, the population skyrocketed, blowing past the planet’s limits. The population, in other words, overshot the planet’s carrying capacity. Then came a big reduction in the civilization’s population until both the planet and the civilization reached a steady state. After that the population and the planet stopped changing. A sustainable planetary civilization was achieved, but at a high cost. In many of the models, we saw as much as 70 percent of the population perish before a steady state was reached. In reality, it’s not clear that a complex technological civilization like ours could survive such a catastrophe.

In many ways we were seeing a kind of cosmic Easter Island play out. There may have been as many as 10,000 people living on Easter Island at the peak of its stone-head-making heyday. But by cutting down all the trees to roll the stone heads around, that civilization seems to have mucked up its ecosystem and sealed its own fate. When the Dutch arrived in 1722 only a few thousand folks, living greatly reduced lives, were left.

The second kind of trajectory held the good news. We called it the “soft landing.” The population grew and the planet changed but together they made a smooth transition to new, balanced equilibrium. The civilization had changed the planet but without triggering a massive die-off.

The final class of trajectory was the most worrisome: full-blown collapse. As in the die-off histories, the population blew up. But these planets just couldn’t handle the avalanche of the civilization’s impact. The host worlds were too sensitive to change, like a houseplant that withers when it’s moved. Conditions on these planets deteriorated so fast the civilization’s population nose-dived all the way to extinction.

You might think switching from the high-impact energy source to the low-impact source would make things better. But for some trajectories, it didn’t matter. If the civilization used only the high-impact resource, the population reached a peak and then quickly dropped to zero. But if we allowed the civilization to switch to the low-impact energy resource, the collapse still happened in certain cases, even if it was delayed. The population would start to fall, then happily stabilize. But then, finally and suddenly, it rushed downward to extinction.

The collapses that occurred even when the civilization did the smart thing demonstrated an essential point about the modeling process. Because the equations capture some of the real world’s complexity, they can surprise you. In some of the “delayed collapse” histories, the planet’s own internal machinery was the culprit. Push a planet too hard, and it won’t return to where it began. We know this can happen, even without a civilization present, because we see it on Venus. That world should be a kind of sister to our own. But long ago Venus’s greenhouse effect slipped into a runaway mode, driving its surface temperatures to a hellish 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Our models were showing, in generic terms, how a civilization could push a planet down the hill into a different kind of runaway through its own activity.

Bottom line: instead of blaming man and calling for all kinds of draconian sacrifices to save the planet, these studies along with my own thinking for a very long time is that the real key to saving humanity and the planet lies less in how mankind lives and works, and much more so in how well we control our population. If we want to save the planet and mankind, I think we need to work towards cutting world population down by about 33% from what it is today.

How Do Aliens Solve Climate Change?

The entire population of the earth could fit comfortably in the state of Texas, with plenty of living space and parks.

Over population is a myth that failed in the 1970's.

The entire population can fit in the State of Rhode Island shoulder to shoulder, so yea, it is a myth.

I need to dig it up, but every man, woman, and child on earth could be given a 1,000 square foot lot in Texas and there would be excess land when it was done.

Oh good. I get 32 feet by 32 feet to build a house, a yard, a pool, a garden, and all my living space!

 

[westwall]

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2017.1671

]

The magic words common to 90% of all climate change "studies"... Taken from the Abstract..

" Using methods from dynamical systems theory, we introduce and analyze a suite of simple equations modeling a population which consumes resources for the purpose of running a technological civilization and the feedback those resources drive on the state of the host planet.



Simple models are to science, what free advertising is to advertising. Pretty much worthless.

 

[westwall]

There is no such thing as a "highly advanced climate change computer model". They do not exist.

Don't make the mistake of thinking anyone else is quite as stupid as you are.

Feel free to post up a link to one of your "complex/advanced" models. I'll wait....

 

[sparky]

 

[westwall]

A recent highly advanced computer using state of the art climate models for how an exo-civilization might evolve lead to some surprising results that civilizations tend to fall into one of three outcomes and that sometimes it did not matter what they did to try to change the consequences. You have to read pretty far down into the article, but a summery of what the models showed was that they saw three distinct kinds of civilizational histories. The first—and, alarmingly, most common—was what we called “the die-off,” which parallels what I have been thinking and saying for 40 years. As the civilization used energy, its numbers grew rapidly, but the use of the resource also pushed the planet away from the conditions the civilization grew up with. As the evolution of the civilization and planet continued, the population skyrocketed, blowing past the planet’s limits. The population, in other words, overshot the planet’s carrying capacity. Then came a big reduction in the civilization’s population until both the planet and the civilization reached a steady state. After that the population and the planet stopped changing. A sustainable planetary civilization was achieved, but at a high cost. In many of the models, we saw as much as 70 percent of the population perish before a steady state was reached. In reality, it’s not clear that a complex technological civilization like ours could survive such a catastrophe.

In many ways we were seeing a kind of cosmic Easter Island play out. There may have been as many as 10,000 people living on Easter Island at the peak of its stone-head-making heyday. But by cutting down all the trees to roll the stone heads around, that civilization seems to have mucked up its ecosystem and sealed its own fate. When the Dutch arrived in 1722 only a few thousand folks, living greatly reduced lives, were left.

The second kind of trajectory held the good news. We called it the “soft landing.” The population grew and the planet changed but together they made a smooth transition to new, balanced equilibrium. The civilization had changed the planet but without triggering a massive die-off.

The final class of trajectory was the most worrisome: full-blown collapse. As in the die-off histories, the population blew up. But these planets just couldn’t handle the avalanche of the civilization’s impact. The host worlds were too sensitive to change, like a houseplant that withers when it’s moved. Conditions on these planets deteriorated so fast the civilization’s population nose-dived all the way to extinction.

You might think switching from the high-impact energy source to the low-impact source would make things better. But for some trajectories, it didn’t matter. If the civilization used only the high-impact resource, the population reached a peak and then quickly dropped to zero. But if we allowed the civilization to switch to the low-impact energy resource, the collapse still happened in certain cases, even if it was delayed. The population would start to fall, then happily stabilize. But then, finally and suddenly, it rushed downward to extinction.

The collapses that occurred even when the civilization did the smart thing demonstrated an essential point about the modeling process. Because the equations capture some of the real world’s complexity, they can surprise you. In some of the “delayed collapse” histories, the planet’s own internal machinery was the culprit. Push a planet too hard, and it won’t return to where it began. We know this can happen, even without a civilization present, because we see it on Venus. That world should be a kind of sister to our own. But long ago Venus’s greenhouse effect slipped into a runaway mode, driving its surface temperatures to a hellish 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Our models were showing, in generic terms, how a civilization could push a planet down the hill into a different kind of runaway through its own activity.

Bottom line: instead of blaming man and calling for all kinds of draconian sacrifices to save the planet, these studies along with my own thinking for a very long time is that the real key to saving humanity and the planet lies less in how mankind lives and works, and much more so in how well we control our population. If we want to save the planet and mankind, I think we need to work towards cutting world population down by about 33% from what it is today.

How Do Aliens Solve Climate Change?

The entire population of the earth could fit comfortably in the state of Texas, with plenty of living space and parks.

Over population is a myth that failed in the 1970's.

The entire population can fit in the State of Rhode Island shoulder to shoulder, so yea, it is a myth.

I need to dig it up, but every man, woman, and child on earth could be given a 1,000 square foot lot in Texas and there would be excess land when it was done.

Oh good. I get 32 feet by 32 feet to build a house, a yard, a pool, a garden, and all my living space!

32X32 is far too big. As a peasant you are only permitted small apartments. Below is what is considered the optimal size home for the masses. Yes, that is a Mini Cooper so that should give you an idea of the scale.



Eco Friendly Bathrooms - Interiordecodir.com

 

[westwall]

I've read it. It is not very compelling to be honest. He makes some assumptions that have no factual basis.

 

[fncceo]

A recent highly advanced computer using state of the art climate models for how an exo-civilization might evolve lead to some surprising results that civilizations tend to fall into one of three outcomes and that sometimes it did not matter what they did to try to change the consequences. You have to read pretty far down into the article, but a summery of what the models showed was that they saw three distinct kinds of civilizational histories. The first—and, alarmingly, most common—was what we called “the die-off,” which parallels what I have been thinking and saying for 40 years. As the civilization used energy, its numbers grew rapidly, but the use of the resource also pushed the planet away from the conditions the civilization grew up with. As the evolution of the civilization and planet continued, the population skyrocketed, blowing past the planet’s limits. The population, in other words, overshot the planet’s carrying capacity. Then came a big reduction in the civilization’s population until both the planet and the civilization reached a steady state. After that the population and the planet stopped changing. A sustainable planetary civilization was achieved, but at a high cost. In many of the models, we saw as much as 70 percent of the population perish before a steady state was reached. In reality, it’s not clear that a complex technological civilization like ours could survive such a catastrophe.

In many ways we were seeing a kind of cosmic Easter Island play out. There may have been as many as 10,000 people living on Easter Island at the peak of its stone-head-making heyday. But by cutting down all the trees to roll the stone heads around, that civilization seems to have mucked up its ecosystem and sealed its own fate. When the Dutch arrived in 1722 only a few thousand folks, living greatly reduced lives, were left.

The second kind of trajectory held the good news. We called it the “soft landing.” The population grew and the planet changed but together they made a smooth transition to new, balanced equilibrium. The civilization had changed the planet but without triggering a massive die-off.

The final class of trajectory was the most worrisome: full-blown collapse. As in the die-off histories, the population blew up. But these planets just couldn’t handle the avalanche of the civilization’s impact. The host worlds were too sensitive to change, like a houseplant that withers when it’s moved. Conditions on these planets deteriorated so fast the civilization’s population nose-dived all the way to extinction.

You might think switching from the high-impact energy source to the low-impact source would make things better. But for some trajectories, it didn’t matter. If the civilization used only the high-impact resource, the population reached a peak and then quickly dropped to zero. But if we allowed the civilization to switch to the low-impact energy resource, the collapse still happened in certain cases, even if it was delayed. The population would start to fall, then happily stabilize. But then, finally and suddenly, it rushed downward to extinction.

The collapses that occurred even when the civilization did the smart thing demonstrated an essential point about the modeling process. Because the equations capture some of the real world’s complexity, they can surprise you. In some of the “delayed collapse” histories, the planet’s own internal machinery was the culprit. Push a planet too hard, and it won’t return to where it began. We know this can happen, even without a civilization present, because we see it on Venus. That world should be a kind of sister to our own. But long ago Venus’s greenhouse effect slipped into a runaway mode, driving its surface temperatures to a hellish 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Our models were showing, in generic terms, how a civilization could push a planet down the hill into a different kind of runaway through its own activity.

Bottom line: instead of blaming man and calling for all kinds of draconian sacrifices to save the planet, these studies along with my own thinking for a very long time is that the real key to saving humanity and the planet lies less in how mankind lives and works, and much more so in how well we control our population. If we want to save the planet and mankind, I think we need to work towards cutting world population down by about 33% from what it is today.

How Do Aliens Solve Climate Change?

The entire population of the earth could fit comfortably in the state of Texas, with plenty of living space and parks.

Over population is a myth that failed in the 1970's.

The entire population can fit in the State of Rhode Island shoulder to shoulder, so yea, it is a myth.

I need to dig it up, but every man, woman, and child on earth could be given a 1,000 square foot lot in Texas and there would be excess land when it was done.

Oh good. I get 32 feet by 32 feet to build a house, a yard, a pool, a garden, and all my living space!

32X32 is far too big. As a peasant you are only permitted small apartments. Below is what is considered the optimal size home for the masses. Yes, that is a Mini Cooper so that should give you an idea of the scale.



Eco Friendly Bathrooms - Interiordecodir.com

While our masters live in dachas in Oklahoma.

 

[westwall]

The entire population of the earth could fit comfortably in the state of Texas, with plenty of living space and parks.

Over population is a myth that failed in the 1970's.

The entire population can fit in the State of Rhode Island shoulder to shoulder, so yea, it is a myth.

I need to dig it up, but every man, woman, and child on earth could be given a 1,000 square foot lot in Texas and there would be excess land when it was done.

Oh good. I get 32 feet by 32 feet to build a house, a yard, a pool, a garden, and all my living space!

32X32 is far too big. As a peasant you are only permitted small apartments. Below is what is considered the optimal size home for the masses. Yes, that is a Mini Cooper so that should give you an idea of the scale.



Eco Friendly Bathrooms - Interiordecodir.com

While our masters live in dachas in Oklahoma.

Nah, they get to live in nice mansions on the coast, and jet set their way all over the world while we can't even go to Yosemite anymore. Hell, if they get their way we won't be able to leave the plantation to travel ever again. "Too big a carbon expense for the peons to afford". The rich though, they can afford anything they wish.

 

[fncceo]

The entire population can fit in the State of Rhode Island shoulder to shoulder, so yea, it is a myth.

I need to dig it up, but every man, woman, and child on earth could be given a 1,000 square foot lot in Texas and there would be excess land when it was done.

Oh good. I get 32 feet by 32 feet to build a house, a yard, a pool, a garden, and all my living space!

32X32 is far too big. As a peasant you are only permitted small apartments. Below is what is considered the optimal size home for the masses. Yes, that is a Mini Cooper so that should give you an idea of the scale.



Eco Friendly Bathrooms - Interiordecodir.com

While our masters live in dachas in Oklahoma.

Nah, they get to live in nice mansions on the coast, and jet set their way all over the world while we can't even go to Yosemite anymore. Hell, if they get their way we won't be able to leave the plantation to travel ever again. "Too big a carbon expense for the peons to afford". The rich though, they can afford anything they wish.

 

[SSDD]

There is no such thing as a "highly advanced climate change computer model". They do not exist.

Don't make the mistake of thinking anyone else is quite as stupid as you are.

Clearly climate models as a group have failed miserably...only the truly stupid, or politically blind place any faith in them whatsoever. Which are you?

 

[sparky]

Which are you?

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

 

[skookerasbil]

Which are you?

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

Here's a guy who missed the lecture on osmosis.

Well good for you Sparky....you get to stand in front of a big old billboard and take bows for the rest of your life! Happy now!!

We on the right couldn't be happier....seeing an army of climate crusaders spiking the football in front of a banner and letting Tom Steyer wage the war on his own. How's that been working out for ya?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Which are you?

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

Here's a guy who missed the lecture on osmosis.

Well good for you Sparky....you get to stand in front of a big old billboard and take bows for the rest of your life! Happy now!!

We on the right couldn't be happier....seeing an army of climate crusaders spiking the football in front of a banner and letting Tom Steyer wage the war on his own. How's that been working out for ya?

Too many recent massively cold winters have a way of penetrating voters minds as they see and feel the reality that Cold weather is still very much real.

 

[skookerasbil]

Which are you?

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

Here's a guy who missed the lecture on osmosis.

Well good for you Sparky....you get to stand in front of a big old billboard and take bows for the rest of your life! Happy now!!

We on the right couldn't be happier....seeing an army of climate crusaders spiking the football in front of a banner and letting Tom Steyer wage the war on his own. How's that been working out for ya?

Too many recent massively cold winters have a way of penetrating voters minds as they see and feel the reality that Cold weather is still very much real.

But....but....but....the science says.....

 

[Sunsettommy]

Which are you?

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

Here's a guy who missed the lecture on osmosis.

Well good for you Sparky....you get to stand in front of a big old billboard and take bows for the rest of your life! Happy now!!

We on the right couldn't be happier....seeing an army of climate crusaders spiking the football in front of a banner and letting Tom Steyer wage the war on his own. How's that been working out for ya?

Too many recent massively cold winters have a way of penetrating voters minds as they see and feel the reality that Cold weather is still very much real.

But....but....but....the science says.....

You mean Modeled science...……………….

 

[westwall]

Which are you?

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

Here's a guy who missed the lecture on osmosis.

Well good for you Sparky....you get to stand in front of a big old billboard and take bows for the rest of your life! Happy now!!

We on the right couldn't be happier....seeing an army of climate crusaders spiking the football in front of a banner and letting Tom Steyer wage the war on his own. How's that been working out for ya?

Too many recent massively cold winters have a way of penetrating voters minds as they see and feel the reality that Cold weather is still very much real.

But....but....but....the science says.....

You mean Modeled science...……………….

No, you meant to say "computer derived fiction".