 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> when lacking nutrients around them, produce some solid
> substance around them and "hibernate"
It's called a "spore". Hence the name of the game. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> In contrast, poor humans have more children than rich humans. How does this
> make sense, aren't humans supposed to be *smarter*?
Children are a resource, but they themselves require a great deal of
resources to develop.
In agrarian cultures, the ROI on children makes it into the black fairly
quickly. All you have to do is feed them for a few years (less than
10), and then they begin working for you.
In developed countries, you have to feed them for 20 years (or more), in
addition to paying for their education (potentially as much or more than
your house, *per child*). Although the potential return is so much
higher than in agrarian cultures, fewer people are willing (or able) to
undertake the necessary cost.
Of course, you still have economic strata in developed countries. The
higher classes are not willing to let their children do worse than the
current generation, and so invest more in their children. This raises
the inherent cost, making children even less attractive economically.
The poorer classes, however, are more than willing to let their kids "do
without," substituting an inferior education (or forgoing it entirely),
and even sacrificing nutritional quality. This brings the cost per
child down dramatically.
Now, I'm not saying that anyone (or at least, most people) sit down and
figure out how much their kids will cost before deciding whether or not
to have them, but it's interesting how well the economic cost
corresponds to family size.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> There is a general consensus that there is anthropogenic global warming,
> what is in discussion is whether it will be catastrophic.
Many people here (in Finland) seem to think that global warming will
mean that some time in the future there will be palm trees in Finland and
we will all be sunbathing all year drinking from pineapple cups while
hawaiian music is playing.
For some reason many (not even in the media) seem to be aware of the
possibility of global warming disturbing the Gulf stream, which may cause
a new ice age in northern Europe. I believe the absolute worst-case
scenario which has been estimated is that in Finland the year-average
temperature will drop to something like -50 degrees, making living here
basically impossible.
It's ironic that global warming might cause an ice age, but it's a real
possibility.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:50:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> It's ironic that global warming might cause an ice age, but it's a
> real
> possibility.
I think that's the reason why it's also been rebranded as "global climate
change".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-7-2009 19:50, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> There is a general consensus that there is anthropogenic global warming,
>> what is in discussion is whether it will be catastrophic.
>
> Many people here (in Finland) seem to think that global warming will
> mean that some time in the future there will be palm trees in Finland and
> we will all be sunbathing all year drinking from pineapple cups while
> hawaiian music is playing.
>
> For some reason many (not even in the media) seem to be aware of the
> possibility of global warming disturbing the Gulf stream, which may cause
> a new ice age in northern Europe. I believe the absolute worst-case
> scenario which has been estimated is that in Finland the year-average
> temperature will drop to something like -50 degrees, making living here
> basically impossible.
I think the gulf stream change is possible, but that ice age may be
worst case, but as likely as tropical Finland, i.e. several standard
deviations from the center of the gauss curve. At least that is my
feeling, but I did not study all possible effects in detail.
Also my personal feeling is that almost any change in any direction is
bad, at least in the short run (upto my grandchildren's grandchildren at
least). The climate and nature and not to forget human activity like
farming are/were in some sort of equilibrium. It'll take decades or
centuries to reach a new steady state. If the climate keeps changing
during that time we will have a continuous problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>>>> The significant increase in CO2 emissions by humans in the last 100
>>>> years and the significant increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere in
>>>> the last 100 years is certainly a heck of a coincidence.
>>>
>>
>> ...which would still mean that humans caused the rise of CO2...
>
> Yeah, but that doesn't mean that CO2 will continue to climb,
> it probably means that the CO2 levels will stabilize at the new
> slightly higher levels. That's hardly something to panic about,
> and it's not a very good reason to cripple the economy.
> They'd get better results by paying poor 3rd world people
> to plant trees, instead of trying to make it so you can breath
> car exaust.
And when the weather changes so much that the "dry" parts of the planet,
as per the official standards for that, rise from 15% to 40%, thus
making it impossible for those trees to grow?
This isn't a simple case of, "Ah, well, it will get a bit warmer, and
some places where be more tropical." It means that places that are now
tropical turn desert, places that are desert turn wasteland, and the
people living there have to either find some other sources for food and
water, since one won't grow, and you can't find the other any more, or
invade someone else to get it. And, "some" parts of the world are on
that edge already, due to where they chose to live before declaring
themselves countries. A shift of a few degrees can turn thousands of
square miles from "usable" land into sand in a generation, and result in
"more" fuel being used to "fix" the problem by pumping in water from
some place else, assuming you have any place to pump fresh water from in
the first place (and that is the other issue, making/finding fresh water).
We may not want the consequences of it "stabilizing" at that higher
level, and many countries probably can't "afford" it. Heck, we already
have people whining about how building desalination plants, to get more
water in some parts of the US would be, "too expensive, so lets just
find some other group of morons, like those people in Owen's Valley, who
will let us steal it from them instead." Funny though.. If you raise the
temperature 2 degrees and the result is 20-30% less snow, where they
hell do you think all the water being pumped from those places is going
to come from? The only reason there is any is "because of" the snow
fall. Reduce it and either a lot of your water goes away as rain,
instead of melting over time, causing erosion and other problems, or you
don't get as much total, in which case... what do you replace it with?
No matter how you look at the problem, its going to result in money
getting spent. You can a) invest in solving problems to you use energy
better, less often, and from cleaner sources, and in the long term
"make" more money, or you can take the short sighted approach, and pay
100 times as much to "fix" the problems that show up in 10 years, due to
not investing in any of it.
California has a similar mess with roads. They have "studied" the issue
of light rail and getting cars off the road for decades. In fact, they
have studied it "multiple times". The result has always been, "too
expensive". Only, the first time it was, $100 million too expensive, the
next time $200 million too expensive, the next $1 billion too expensive,
etc., so every time they took the "short term approach" of building more
lanes, which doesn't "fix" the problem, since you still only have 1-2
narrow lanes to get on and off with. Result... They are probably
spending $1 billion a year to maintain the mess, pay for medical
expenses from health issues from all the cars, etc. But, at least the
"roads" cost less than a light rail system.
Let me put it this way. Idiots, and the greedy, wait until it costs
"more" to keep things as they are than it does to fix the issue, and
then they try to cut as many corners as possible anyway, when it becomes
inevitable. The cost to tax payers, innovation, business (do to having
to pay incidental costs or work around the defects in the current
systems), and to people's health, and other issues, is either glossed
over, ignored, or classed as "unknown, so we won't bother even making a
vague guess, since we really don't want the answer anyway". But, as a
rational person, why would you, me, or anyone else hire an idiot, or
someone more interested in their "current" bank statement, over the
future, instead of someone willing to stand up and admit, "This is
unsustainable, and we need to do something, even if it hurts a 'little'
right now. Because, if we wait, like we always do with this stuff, its
going to bankrupt people and destroy entire industries to fix it."?
Nah, lets just pick the same people, over and over, who equate keeping
things as they are with progress, and watch the bill for solving the
problem keep going up, until we have to start using a made up word like
decahedronogazillion to describe how much it will "cost" to fix the
problems we didn't think where serious enough to piss off some energy
consortium's special interest lobby with.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> In any case, the denialists in this case still have to explain the
>> "dry region" changes from 15% of the planet to 40%, and a number of
>> other factors, even if there was a "localized" trend for cooler weather.
>
> Water vapor is a result of evaporation, and evaporation is
> a result of heat, so cooler global temperatures means drier weather.
> Maybe if where you live, in Lake Havasu, AZ, without all the buildings,
> it would only be 110 degrees, instead of 70 degrees with the AC on.
> :-)
Ah, right.. That is why deserts are so "wet". Its a bit more fracking
complicated than that. And, no, cooler temperatures do not "necessarily"
mean drier weather. The reason its dry here is "due to" the heat. The
lake isn't large enough for the huge desert around it to be positively
effected with rain, so the problem is that the rain either hardly ever
falls, and/or evaporates again before it hits. Most of the rain falls
farther inland, because it usually never gets "cold enough" for it to
condense and fall to the ground, until it gets farther north, and out of
the desert areas (or it runs into mountains, which.. tend to be high, so
kind of "collect" anything that hits them before it can evaporate again...)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 1-7-2009 19:50, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> There is a general consensus that there is anthropogenic global
>>> warming, what is in discussion is whether it will be catastrophic.
>>
>> Many people here (in Finland) seem to think that global warming will
>> mean that some time in the future there will be palm trees in Finland and
>> we will all be sunbathing all year drinking from pineapple cups while
>> hawaiian music is playing.
>>
>> For some reason many (not even in the media) seem to be aware of the
>> possibility of global warming disturbing the Gulf stream, which may cause
>> a new ice age in northern Europe. I believe the absolute worst-case
>> scenario which has been estimated is that in Finland the year-average
>> temperature will drop to something like -50 degrees, making living here
>> basically impossible.
>
> I think the gulf stream change is possible, but that ice age may be
> worst case, but as likely as tropical Finland, i.e. several standard
> deviations from the center of the gauss curve. At least that is my
> feeling, but I did not study all possible effects in detail.
> Also my personal feeling is that almost any change in any direction is
> bad, at least in the short run (upto my grandchildren's grandchildren at
> least). The climate and nature and not to forget human activity like
> farming are/were in some sort of equilibrium. It'll take decades or
> centuries to reach a new steady state. If the climate keeps changing
> during that time we will have a continuous problem.
Yeah. Its also great for Finland if it hits 80 there in spring, but not
so great for say Jamaica, when it hits 200... Its the failure to grasp
that the change is absolutely going to be "global" and their beach house
in Florida is *very likely* going to become a sand dune in New Egypt, if
Finland becomes the new Florida, that gets me.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Many people here (in Finland) seem to think that global warming will
> mean that some time in the future there will be palm trees in Finland and
> we will all be sunbathing all year drinking from pineapple cups while
> hawaiian music is playing.
No doubt they are playing off the predicted 2 degree per century temperature
rise figure (or whatever it is today), which seems unlikely to allow palm
trees to grow in Finland anytime soon. Anyway, they could just move to a
different country right now if that is what they really want.
> For some reason many (not even in the media) seem to be aware of the
> possibility of global warming disturbing the Gulf stream,
Of course, the X degree per century rise is an *average* for the entire
planet, of course some regions are going to increase faster than that and
some slower, maybe even reducing temperature as you suggest.
Hasn't the Gulf stream changed position over the centuries anyway - relying
on it to always stay in exactly the same place seems a bit foolish.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Because, if we wait, like we always do with this stuff, its going to
> bankrupt people and destroy entire industries to fix it."?
You never really responded to my reasoning...
A "warmer sun" creates more dampness from the oceans,
dampness that would result in rain in arid regions.
We currently are in one of the longest solar minimums
since the Maunder minimum.* So of course it's dry.
It's just not something humanity caused.
It's also a bunch of political BS that there is
any global warming going on. If anything it's
cooling more than usual.**
While increased CO2 is something to pay
attention to, after all we need air to breath,
the current CO2 levels are still low on a
geologic timeframe, and simply planting
more trees and irrigating more would have
dramatic impacts in livability in much of the
world. *** If we aren't going to do the things
that have big impacts, then why bankrupt
America for things that are picayune?
* http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
** http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
***
http://greenprophet.com/2008/12/03/4692/ben-gurion-university-desertification-conference/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
