|
Cobweb Heart posted:From reading this thread I've gathered (please tell me if this is inaccurate) that our best-case scenario for avoiding Atheist Rapture is a revolution of awareness on the local scale, destabilizing the grip of oil companies on the government, and putting into practice a combined bunch of bizarre schemes that hopefully don't have any negative side effects (filling the Sahara with eucalyptus, manufacturing engineered carbon algae, setting up thorium reactors).
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Cobweb Heart posted:From reading this thread I've gathered (please tell me if this is inaccurate) that our best-case scenario for avoiding Atheist Rapture is a revolution of awareness on the local scale, destabilizing the grip of oil companies on the government, and putting into practice a combined bunch of bizarre schemes that hopefully don't have any negative side effects (filling the Sahara with eucalyptus, manufacturing engineered carbon algae, setting up thorium reactors). Talk to your friends, your family, your neighbors. Plan a lifestyle without children, learn to grow your own food, and learn how to organize small communities. I firmly believe that someone for someone our age (I'm 23, so not that far a difference) the best way to promote personal long-term well being is being part of a community that takes climate change seriously enough to prepare for it. Think about what you want to go to school for, and how it can be leveraged to contribute to a group effort. You must also be prepared to kill to defend yourself, and to assault centers of political power if the chance comes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Just wanted to add in my two cents as a public health professional: One of the other reasons our population growth has increased is that we have been quite successful at combatting the other natural regulator to overpopulation; specifically, infectious diseases. Technological advances, such as the seperation of potable water from sewage, the chlorination and treatment of drinking water, control of vector-borne diseases, universal vaccinations, food inspections, sex education, and the use of quarantine and isolation procedures during outbreaks - have gone a long way to maintain the population levels we currently have. Some health professionals advocate it is not the fact that we have been multiplying like rabbits - but that we have stopped dying like flies - that has helped to increase population levels (especially in concentrated urban areas). That being said, I would never argue the return to days where Cholera, Diptheria, Smallpox, Polio or Leprosy held sway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Guigui posted:Just wanted to add in my two cents as a public health professional: One of the other reasons our population growth has increased is that we have been quite successful at combatting the other natural regulator to overpopulation; specifically, infectious diseases. Technological advances, such as the seperation of potable water from sewage, the chlorination and treatment of drinking water, control of vector-borne diseases, universal vaccinations, food inspections, sex education, and the use of quarantine and isolation procedures during outbreaks - have gone a long way to maintain the population levels we currently have. Those that complain about overpopulation rarely realize if we returned to the 'good old days' of low demographic growth they'd probably be dead before reaching age 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Geoid posted:Those that complain about overpopulation rarely realize if we returned to the 'good old days' of low demographic growth they'd probably be dead before reaching age 5. We can "return" to low (or even negative) population growth by quite a lot of ways other than childhood mortality or disease. See: Japan, USA, most of Europe. If all of the developing world had their quality (and cost) of life raised to post-industrial western standards, global population growth would probably be nil or negative within a couple generations. Unfortunately if that means scaling up American-style consumption to the whole planet, we'd pretty much cook in our own resource-depleted soup in the same timeframe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
JohnnySavs posted:We can "return" to low (or even negative) population growth by quite a lot of ways other than childhood mortality or disease. See: Japan, USA, most of Europe. If all of the developing world had their quality (and cost) of life raised to post-industrial western standards, global population growth would probably be nil or negative within a couple generations. Unfortunately if that means scaling up American-style consumption to the whole planet, we'd pretty much cook in our own resource-depleted soup in the same timeframe. Don't forget the post-Soviet states. The birth rates plummeted with absolutely free healthcare, women's reproductive and equal employment rights, free higher education and so on. They had their own problems, but economic equality and wealth redistribution is absolutely a necessary tool in fighting overpopulation. I think a less consumerist society would be more efficiently able to deal with our increasingly scarce resources as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Geoid posted:Those that complain about overpopulation rarely realize if we returned to the 'good old days' of low demographic growth they'd probably be dead before reaching age 5.  nobody who actually holds this flowery view of the past exists.Why is population control such an anathema? You do know that most of the time it isn't forced sterilization and one-child policies, but instead educating women and encouraging family planning as well as improving peoples general lot in life gets the best results yes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:
I think most people who are troubled by population control (myself included) feel that having rich Westerners "educate" global Southerners on how to live their lives has negative overtones of imperialism and tends toward the paternalistic policies Europe and America have exhibited towards the rest of the world during the last 500 years. Unfortunately, those policies have often included forced sterilization, extermination, and cultural (or literal) genocide. That's setting aside the point succinctly put by JohnnySavs about the catastrophic environmental impact of "raising up" the third world to an American standard of living.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I think most people who are troubled by population control (myself included) feel that having rich Westerners "educate" global Southerners on how to live their lives has negative overtones of imperialism and tends toward the paternalistic policies Europe and America have exhibited towards the rest of the world during the last 500 years. Unfortunately, those policies have often included forced sterilization, extermination, and cultural (or literal) genocide. Well I can understand the issue of the west lording it over the rest of the world over how they should have kids, but that ignores the fact that the most effective birth control programs were almost entirely home grown, usually without any major western involvement. Look at Iran, the birth rate there collapsed from the nineties onwards, even under the insular theocracy. Its no coincidence that it also has one of the best educated female populations in the middle east. Even if someone takes the view that overpopulation was such a problem that they should start forced sterilization those sorts of coercive methods are horribly ineffective. Look at India, Indira Gandhi's forced sterilization campaigns were disastrous politically while also being ineffective, and ultimately self-defeating since they created animosity toward family planning. But India's birth rate is now less than half what it was in 1960 regardless, since people still make the decision of their own accord not to have as many kids for their quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Contraception access and proper sex ed really are the way to go. The only obstacles have been ideological (Bush-era abstinence only mandate, Religious missionaries in developing countries) Of course population as a whole should also go down, but that gets into a much more dangerous area ethically (advocating against life saving medicine and for war)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
quote:From reading this thread I've gathered (please tell me if this is inaccurate) that our best-case scenario for avoiding Atheist Rapture is a revolution of awareness on the local scale, destabilizing the grip of oil companies on the government, and putting into practice a combined bunch of bizarre schemes that hopefully don't have any negative side effects (filling the Sahara with eucalyptus, manufacturing engineered carbon algae, setting up thorium reactors). If we can change policies and get our loving emissions under control now, we will probably be okay, even without any kind of large-scale mitigation experiments. There will be warming & acidification, but it wouldn't be insurmountable. If you've already done basic things like replacing your lightbulbs, you should be harassing the ever-loving poo poo out of your local representative. Every single day, that guy/girl should have to read through your e-mails about how unacceptable the current status quo is, and answer your questions about what will be done to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
quote:Think about this. About 40% of the land of the United States is owned by governments. And a great deal of this land is not well taken care of from an environmental perspective. There are parks and beaches and all kinds of land that deserves better caretakers. quote:Because I don't think there can be any doubt if we are being honest, that a great deal of the academics that make up the modern environmental movement are central planners and socialists and ex-Marxists or have a background in a similar political persuasion. They have reinvented themselves under the guise of environmentalism. Also please explain why this is inherently a problem. Yes, some people think that climate change is a problem that overshadows basically anything else, and that central planning is the best available way to solve it. Historical evidence brings us exactly 0 occurrences of for-profit organizations trying to solve problem of the commons, because there's no profit in it.. Central organization exists exactly for resolving problems of the commons, thereby preventing the tragedy: If a good is commonly owned, historical evidence shows it will be depleted, unless one of two things happen: The use is limited and regulated, or the good changes owners to a smaller group which won't over-utilize it. Please explain how can we transfer the ownership of the global climate. Going that route, i don't think you'll dispute that the owner of the atmosphere is the sole owner and ruler of the planet, and in that case, it's an authoritarian power, its name being 'government' or 'corporation' changes little. Keep in mind that while your idea is 'utopia' is 'libertarian society' and your idea of 'dystopia' is 'socialist state', for most of us it's the other way round. Arguments using "Libertarian society is better than socialist society" as an hypothesis and not thesis will not be considered valid unless the hypothesis is proved true, which is a completely separate issue, of which we have no interest to discuss in this thread. There is one thing that the for-profit enterprises could do for both profit and climate-saving: Nuclear power. To date, for-profit enterprises do not want to engage in long-term projects without external guarantees, and as such won't build their only chance for usefulness in the scope of climate change without government subsides and/or guarantees. While there is no doubt the nuclear industry is overregulated in the west, it hasn't always been so - and no nuclear plant has been built by a private enterprise without governmental help in the known history. The missing point is: Once the climate is hosed up, there is NO turning back. And no amount of capital will be able to pay up the damage already done. Please explain how the libertarian society is able to act in a preventive manner about this problem, which is completely against their short-term interests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Individual action (such as turning off the lights, eating less meat, etc.) is piss in the ocean when fighting climate change. Community action isn't much better. Action that fights climate change needs to be societal and global, or it's still going to result in all the bad things, and if the current political and economic norms are allowed to perpetuate, it's just going to keep getting worse. The best solution is to create a mass movement. The Labor movement, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffrage, and other major movements throughout history advanced rights and made progress. What we need now is an environmentalist movement equivalent to restructure society. We need a democratically planned economy, not an economy where profit is king, because once society is run by everyone, it can be run in their benefit. Also, as a socialist who would like to see the environmentalists and socialists link up in solidarity, I can say with good confidence that most environmentalists are not socialists, closet Marxists, or anything of that nature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Welp...Climate Progress posted:Study: We’re Headed To 11°F Warming And Even 7°F Requires ‘Nearly Quadrupling The Current Rate Of Decarbonisation’ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ecarbonisation/ I just pulled a few things from the entire post. Worth reading in it's entirety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
tmfool posted:The only hope is very rapid deployment of carbon-free technology starting ASAP. Pfffft that'll be the day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
quote:Science stunner — On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter There's no doubt in my mind that the current set of accepted models massively underestimate feedbacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Pfffft that'll be the day. I love that for the past 30 years we've been told "we must act now or it will be too late!" (it's already too late, enjoy the ride)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Cobweb Heart posted:From reading this thread I've gathered (please tell me if this is inaccurate) that our best-case scenario for avoiding Atheist Rapture is a revolution of awareness on the local scale, destabilizing the grip of oil companies on the government, and putting into practice a combined bunch of bizarre schemes that hopefully don't have any negative side effects (filling the Sahara with eucalyptus, manufacturing engineered carbon algae, setting up thorium reactors). By the time you turn 55 in 2050, the Earth will probably be about .5 degrees warmer and the sea levels will be about 4 inches higher, and the remaining non-humanoid homo sapiens will have long since abandoned the apocalyptic predictions of yesteryear. You'll be okay. Hopefully in the interim, we've worked towards solving the gargantuan socioeconomic problem of poverty in the third world. So maybe you can divert your youthful energies toward that pursuit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Arkane posted:By the time you turn 55 in 2050, the Earth will probably be about .5 degrees warmer and the sea levels will be about 4 inches higher, and the remaining non-humanoid homo sapiens will have long since abandoned the apocalyptic predictions of yesteryear. You'll be okay. Hopefully in the interim, we've worked towards solving the gargantuan socioeconomic problem of poverty in the third world. So maybe you can divert your youthful energies toward that pursuit. Welcome back to the Climate Change thread Arkane. Perhaps you'd care to address the actual science posted in this thread, even this page, as opposed to your usual uncited and baseless predictions about temperature rise over the next 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Prettz posted:Welp, indeed. That is compared to pre-industrial times. I suppose it doesn't really make much difference, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Welcome back to the Climate Change thread Arkane. Perhaps you'd care to address the actual science posted in this thread, even this page, as opposed to your usual uncited and baseless predictions about temperature rise over the next 40 years. Science left this thread many months ago. It's a matter of numerical fact that temperatures have been rising by ~.13C per decade for over 30 years now (using 1979/satellite launch as a starting point...GISS, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH all in agreement on that number). Not only do we not see acceleration in the data, but the climate model predictions from IPCC AR4 are now rejecting: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/arima11-mc-corrected-gistemp-trends-inconsistent-with-0-2cdecade/ This is called math. It's also a matter of numerical fact that sea levels have been rising by ~3cm per decade for about 20 years now (using 1992 as a starting point, again a satellite launch). We don't see acceleration in that data either. There's also the fact that an indeterminate amount of that rise would be occurring whether humanity were here or not, by virtue of the fact that our planet is still emerging from the last ice age (the previous interglacial, when human civilization didn't exist, had sea levels rising to many feet higher than we are today). So when you combine these two facts with the scientific fact that each new molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere has a diminishing greenhouse gas effect, please explain to me on what basis you or anyone else is predicting apocalyptic calamity? Feedback loops causing catastrophic warming is a theory. A theory that has yet to be born out by any data or observations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Uh-huh. Anyway... We might be screwed because we can't cut emissions fast enough, but we can artificially cool the Earth to keep the heating under control. Geo-engineering is risky, and I fully acknowledge we don't have a complete understanding how we might do it without messing up one of the numerous complicated systems that governs the climate, but it is an option on the table. And soon enough it might be our only option if we want to avoid the very real 2 degree increase to the average global temperature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not only do we not see acceleration in the data http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...orts/?mobile=nc http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/teaching/papers_to_read/cox_etal_nat_00.pdf http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml You were already probated in this thread for posting at all, why don't you take your tired old debunked arguments back to freep or wherever they came from. PS. There is a reason the data you are using starts in 1992 and 1979 and ignore sea temperatures and it isn't because your "science" is thorough and complete. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...orts/?mobile=nc Your first link is completely consistent with what I posted. I'm not sure what you are trying to say by pasting it. Your second link is a pre-AR4 paper. We've had a plethora of data since the year 2000 which now show the models from AR4 are biased warm, and this bias is statistically significant. The assumptions underpinning those models should be examined. Your third link explains that sea levels will risen 280mm to 340mm by 2100. This is pretty much exactly what I posted originally. You should do more than just haphazardly copy and paste from Google, you should do more than lob insults...you should probably try and educate yourself on this issue. Edit to respond to your edit: a lovely poster posted:PS. There is a reason the data you are using starts in 1992 and 1979 and ignore sea temperatures and it isn't because your "science" is thorough and complete. My starting points are not random nor intended to mislead. They are satellite launches, as I said. The (first) sea level satellite was launched into space in 1992. Its measurements are posted quarterly here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ The (first) satellite which measures global temperature was launched in 1979. Its measurements are posted monthly here: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html and here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_2012_v5.5.png Arkane fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Your first link is completely consistent with what I posted. I'm not sure what you are trying to say by pasting it. I mean, the.. third line of the article is: >>>Climate change accelerated in 2001-2010, according to preliminary assessment quote:Edit to respond to your edit:
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Arkane, you are awful and boring in these climate chamge threads. Every single AGW thread you run in, spew out a cloud of squid ink, and when the posters who time and background background in envirosci or climatology finally take the trouble to painstakingly deconstruct your disingenuous bad faith lies, the ones you shroud in nonsense numbers and made up graphs, you run away again. In other news, do any of you have an overview or commentary you want to offer on what climate change is going to mean for the great lakes watershed, and whether you think the Compact is going to hold as a use agreement? Or do you suspect the USA is going to end up going all Aral Sea on the Lakes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Aureon posted:This paper shows acceleration. You just made the claim that there's no acceleration. Because you're talking about two different time periods. The contention in the press release was that the temperature from 1971 to 2010 is growing at a faster rate than pre-1971. Completely correct. My point was that within the sample of 1971 to 2010 or 1979 to 2012, we're not seeing acceleration in temperature rise predicted by climate models. Temperature has to accelerate VERY rapidly in order to get to some of the apocalyptic projections bandied about here. Do you recognize this? Aureon posted:Having read the thread less than a week ago from the start, i'm feeling an awkward sensation of deja-vu. Repetition is required when people don't grasp basic scientific and mathematical facts. tatankatonk posted:Arkane, you are awful and boring in these climate chamge threads. Every single AGW thread you run in, spew out a cloud of squid ink, and when the posters who time and background background in envirosci or climatology finally take the trouble to painstakingly deconstruct your disingenuous bad faith lies, the ones you shroud in nonsense numbers and made up graphs, you run away again. Not lying, and not posting in bad faith either. And the numbers aren't nonsense. This is like the liberal version of rejecting poll numbers, instead you're rejecting observations and statistics. Like I said, the science is out the window here. I'm flabbergasted that people ignore what is right in front of them. Arkane fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
The acceleration of sea level rise happens over much longer periods of time: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:In other news, do any of you have an overview or commentary you want to offer on what climate change is going to mean for the great lakes watershed, and whether you think the Compact is going to hold as a use agreement? Or do you suspect the USA is going to end up going all Aral Sea on the Lakes? I think there are going to be serious disputes between Canada and the United States about water usage, especially as it could be piped to an increasingly dusty midwest to maintain agriculture there. And ultimately, the United States is going to get full use of out the Great Lakes if need be, because Canada cannot really stop its southern neighbour from doing so. Given that a sizeable portion of the Canadian population lives along the Great Lakes, this is not good news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:My point was that within the sample of 1971 to 2010 or 1979 to 2012, we're not seeing acceleration in temperature rise predicted by climate models. Temperature has to accelerate VERY rapidly in order to get to some of the apocalyptic projections bandied about here. Do you recognize this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
grapesmoker posted:The acceleration of sea level rise happens over much longer periods of time: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ You guys/gals need to make the distinction here...you keep talking about whether it accelerated in the distant past (pre-1970, or thereabouts, compared to now), when I am speaking specifically of whether it is accelerating in recent observations or will accelerate in the future. Continually posting links discussing accelerations in the early 20th Century is missing the point of what I am discussing; I am disputing that or in disagreement. The questions I am seeking to answer: is there evidence that we will see catastrophic warming? If there is, what is it? And to answer that we're looking at observational data and comparing it against what the models are predicting. Deleuzionist posted:Which projections specifically, and what is the matter with them, o weaver of weasel words? The IPCC's projections from their most recent publication, the 4th Assessment Report (AR4). In the 12 years since their models began, our observations are "colder" than predicted. And we've yet to see any reason why they would speed up besides hypothetical discussions of feedback loops. We still don't have a firm grip on whether cloud cover changes will have a warming or cooling effect. It should be crystal clear that any predictions of catastrophic warming are contingent upon severe warming feedbacks. CO2 in and of itself will not do it, because as I said, each additional molecule in the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You guys/gals need to make the distinction here...you keep talking about whether it accelerated in the distant past (pre-1970, or thereabouts, compared to now), when I am speaking specifically of whether it is accelerating in recent observations or will accelerate in the future. Continually posting links discussing accelerations in the early 20th Century is missing the point of what I am discussing; I am disputing that or in disagreement. The questions I am seeking to answer: is there evidence that we will see catastrophic warming? If there is, what is it? And to answer that we're looking at observational data and comparing it against what the models are predicting. Just read the post; all is explained therein. In fact the trendline in the plot does accelerate, as you can quite easily tell even by looking at it. Also, I have no idea why you don't think feedback effects are important. You seem to think that your comments somehow defeat the work of actual climate scientists doing actual climate science. edit: http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/03/ipcc-ar4-projections-and-observations-part-1/ . Summary: observations are lower than the mean predictions but well within the 90% confidence error bounds. grapesmoker fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The IPCC's projections from their most recent publication, the 4th Assessment Report (AR4). In the 12 years since their models began, our observations are "colder" than predicted. And we've yet to see any reason why they would speed up besides hypothetical discussions of feedback loops. We still don't have a firm grip on whether cloud cover changes will have a warming or cooling effect. It should be crystal clear that any predictions of catastrophic warming are contingent upon severe warming feedbacks. CO2 in and of itself will not do it, because as I said, each additional molecule in the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect. I would additionally venture a guess that you're talking about 'catastrophic warming' instead of global warming in general as you did before because on the first page of this thread it specifically says that trying to derail the thread by questioning the latter will get you banned. Deleuzionist fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Because you're talking about two different time periods. The contention in the press release was that the temperature from 1971 to 2010 is growing at a faster rate than pre-1971. Completely correct. Accelerated between 2001 and 2010.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You guys/gals need to make the distinction here...you keep talking about whether it accelerated in the distant past (pre-1970, or thereabouts, compared to now), when I am speaking specifically of whether it is accelerating in recent observations or will accelerate in the future. Continually posting links discussing accelerations in the early 20th Century is missing the point of what I am discussing; I am disputing that or in disagreement. The questions I am seeking to answer: is there evidence that we will see catastrophic warming? If there is, what is it? And to answer that we're looking at observational data and comparing it against what the models are predicting. A noble goal, to say the least - yet one needs to apply the Reimback theorem (Reimbeck, Nature 2010 pp. 1056-1078) explaining the differences between total acceleration of thermal energy within a measurable field of study, versus those under discrete temperature variables. To be quite frank, I didn't quite enjoy the comparisons Reimbeck made to measurements taken in Johannesburg (184-545); yet it does describe some of the overall global fluctuations between total thermal mass of the solar body, versus atmospheric variability. quote:The IPCC's projections from their most recent publication, the 4th Assessment Report (AR4). In the 12 years since their models began, our observations are "colder" than predicted. And we've yet to see any reason why they would speed up besides hypothetical discussions of feedback loops. You raise an interesting point - when Weisenbeck used the ATTC measurement theorem for various beacon-activity in the Pacific, a total of 3 cm rise was made between the time periods of 1972 and 2008. Unfortunately, Weisenbeck did not attune for specific gravity fluctuations amongst relative dataset intervals (he didn't keep a consistent baseline) and therefore, subsets 2,5, and 7 all north of the 55 deg. Latitude had to be recalibrated. Fortunately, the IPCC took this into account and refocused on better model predictions. quote:We still don't have a firm grip on whether cloud cover changes will have a warming or cooling effect. It should be crystal clear that any predictions of catastrophic warming are contingent upon severe warming feedbacks. CO2 in and of itself will not do it, because as I said, each additional molecule in the atmosphere has an ever diminishing effect. That is an excellent point - we do not have exact measurable data on the amount of cooling a solid, or semi-solid (opaque) object of specific mass will have on total reflectivity within a solar massm - such as Alpha Centaurii. The Russian government, however, did attempt a specific measurement dataset back in 1999 when the Znamia mirror attached to MIR did alter some brief, if not subjective, data on total reflectivity indexes, but unfortunately due to technical issues the experiment had to be shelved due to tearing of the membrane. Also, Mega Man 2 is a great game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
quote:Study: We’re Headed To 11°F Warming And Even 7°F Requires ‘Nearly Quadrupling The Current Rate Of Decarbonisation’ NOPE.AVI I know the article spells this out in the other section you posted, but this needs to be emphasized: 4 degrees (or higher) is not acceptable. This is not something we can kinda-sorta compromise on; the difference between 2 degrees and 4 degrees may be billions of dead people. Like, literally, billions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:The worst case scenario is we're all dead. Our arable land will become desert, and we will have very little food to feed the world population. What you are saying is patently absurd. There is NO scientific evidence that global climate change, at least that which is affected by human behavior, will lead to killing us all off. Nor is there evidence that CO2 emissions will turn all the land to desert and cause us to all starve. As I have mentioned already, I am more than concerned about environmental problems and other things that can threaten the future of humanity. But to engage is ridiculous fear mongering which has absolutely no basis in science or honest projections, discredits your own case and makes you look quite foolish. And also, one of the pervasive myths that you are regurgitating is the idea that we had significant deregulation which is one of the primary reasons for our current problems. We absolutely did NOT have more regulation during the 1950s. We were much closer to a market economy. We had a dollar that was still linked to gold (international gold standard), this was prior to the "Great Society" programs, before Medicare and government involvement in medicine. We had no significant "war on poverty" or extensive welfare state. The Federal Government was drastically smaller than it is today. While it is true that tax rates on the wealthy were higher, this is a deceptive statistic. For one thing, those that were considered "wealthy" in those days, correcting for inflation, would be individuals making multiple millions of dollars a year, not $250,000. Second, no one actually paid those rates in taxes. There were so many deductions that were available then that many richer Americans paid the same or less than they would today. Not only that, but considering the relative soundness of the dollar and lack of debasement, the hidden tax of inflation was far less of an issue. Savings were abundant and personal debt was far less than it is today. Couple that with the reality of far less government regulation and red tape applied to business behavior and the truth is that the burden of government was far less on an entrepreneur and the environment was far more conducive for capital formation and business expansion. In short, we had an imperfect but relatively speaking, a free market. You mention World War II as if it was some sort of great success in terms of the economy or domestic prosperity. It might have been a war we needed to fight, but it was devastating to the economy and to domestic prosperity. There was tremendous rationing and reduction in living standards as so much of the economic activity was diverted from producing consumer goods to building bombs and tanks and weapons to destroy. And did World War II get us out of the Depression? Absolutely not. That is a fallacious Keynesian myth and has no basis in historical fact. The truth is that in 1945 and early '46 at the conclusion of that war, the economy was very depressed. Millions came home without the prospect of work. But what did our government do? We slashed spending by two thirds and cut taxes by one third. It was the largest spending cuts our government has ever enacted in its history. The Keynesian economists of the day were horrified and warned that such policies will sink us back into the Great Depression. Of course, Keynesian ideology teaches that only government spending can get us out of recessions and depressions, and spending cuts and laissez faire is a disaster. However, what actually happened is that during 1946 and 1947, we had the greatest single year of economic growth in US history, following the spending cuts and tax cuts. This policy, which only the Austrian economists supported and ran contrary to the mainstream Keynesian theories, lead to a robust recovery and paved the way for a very prosperous time in the 1950s and 60s. Contrary to what you might have learned in 7th grade history class, it was not wise government regulation and progressive or socialist policies that created the mid 20th century prosperity we experienced, but rather a rejection of such policies in a wise decision to slash spending and cut taxes following WW2. In fact, Progressive policies gave us the Federal Reserve, World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II. They created a great deal of harm and destruction of prosperity. It was only the temporary cessation of destructive intervention that lead to a respite that proved a relief for American workers and businessmen who finally had the capital and environment to create prosperity and uplift the middle class through the efficient allocation of goods and resources at the behest of consumer demand, rather than government central planning. Later on, in the mid to late 1960s and early 1970s, we regressed and had a series of atrocious government policies that paved the way for our current troubles. We had the Vietnam War, certainly the most unnecessary and immoral war of the last half century, we had Johnson's Great Society, which actually ended up flatlining the trend of decreased poverty that had been ongoing for the previous seventy years until government foolishly decided to directly subsidize poverty. Finally, in 1971, Nixon closed the gold window and got rid of the last link of the dollar to gold, and created the Petro dollar, embracing a worldwide fiat currency that has allowed unlimited growth in government, deficits and destructive debasement of our currency which is destroying the middle class. The idea you have that we have more free markets today than in the 1950s is not compatible with any facts or data. It is absurd on every level. I can demonstrate a direct cause and effect regarding the destructiveness of central economic planning and central banking and government intervention in terms of the prosperity of the middle class and the health of the economy. You seem to rely on platitudes and talking points that you heard on TV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
quote:There is NO scientific evidence that global climate change, at least that which is affected by human behavior, will lead to killing us all off. Nor is there evidence that CO2 emissions will turn all the land to desert and cause us to all starve. You being too ignorant and foolish to read the studies that have been done =/= the studies don't exist. I'm not on a proper machine right now so I can't go digging-up articles for you, and I don't honesty know if I can be assed to do it later tonight because I know you won't read the articles anyway, but suffice it to say that changing the composition of the atmosphere ain't a joke. No, the most likely scenario isn't total extinction, but you asked for the WORST CASE SCENARIO, and that's pretty much it. EDIT: And yes, World War II did get you out of the recession that started in the 1930s. You're extremely ignorant of most subject matter. The Ender fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We absolutely did NOT have more regulation during the 1950s. We were much closer to a market economy. We had a dollar that was still linked to gold (international gold standard), this was prior to the "Great Society" programs, before Medicare and government involvement in medicine. We had no significant "war on poverty" or extensive welfare state. Greenhouse emissions are increasing primarily because global energy demand is increasing, not because of deregulation. There is no market solution to that problem. Please respond to my earlier post asking how the market could possibly solve for externalities. The rest of your post is both outside the scope of this thread and filled with assertions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Because the governments which have moved even further away from privatisation and the market economy are getting things done even more effectively, with better outcomes for their citizens in terms of standard of living, ease of doing business and per-capita economic performance. Yes, governments are quite good at "getting things done". But what things are those exactly? Certainly our government and other governments have no trouble subsidizing certain forms of energy. To the extent that some nations are subsidizing green energy more than others, you deem that to be a success. I want to see proof that such actions will demonstrate an appreciable effect on global temperatures over decades. That is the main goal, right? If not, then how are we not sure that such corporate/government "partnerships" are not simply another form of crony capitalism where favored interests get in bed with government to expropriate the public without their consent under the smokescreen of "green" and environmental rhetoric? I would like to see alternative energies emerge on the market. Only through competition and consumer choice can the best technologies and energy sources be determined. In governments, surely it is obvious that funds are allocated in a political, rather than economically sound manner? Therefore, less efficient and too costly technologies will likely be invested in because the company that is benefiting from the largess does not have to compete against alternative companies. You must have a very naive view of the intelligence of politicians if you think they possess the knowledge to be able to choose the correct type of energy sources and green technologies. Why not free up the energy market and allow private investment into green energy and technology? Only the most efficient and reliable green technology and energy will succeed amidst a torrent of competition which will raise the quality of the resulting product. I don't accept the idea that any other nation you could point to has economic policies that lead to better outcomes than the ones WE USED TO HAVE. I am not comparing other nations to our own current condition. I don't doubt for a second that I would much rather live in Sweden or some other European nation today than live in the United States today. What I am saying is that we should look to our own history and the policies that led to us having the largest middle class, most prosperous economy and highest living standards and built upon that, improve it and create a society based on individual liberty, sound money, property rights and contract rights with an emphasis on non aggression and peaceful cooperation. Both from the theoretical and the practical and historical, I can demonstrate why such policies would lead to superior outcomes over both the social democracies of Europe and the quasi Fascist, militarist current policies of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:18
|
|