 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Except climate... we f***ed that one up.
http://xkcd.com/603/
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Except climate... we f***ed that one up.
>
> http://xkcd.com/603/
I don't think it has *ever* been the case that intelligent people had
more children. (Quite the converse, actually.) Possibly more of them
*survived*, but that's a different statement. ;-)
Also: Nice hat.
Last time I went outside in a hat, I got asked out. By a boy. o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-6-2009 11:08, Invisible wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Except climate... we f***ed that one up.
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/603/
>
> I don't think it has *ever* been the case that intelligent people had
> more children.
Unless the intelligent persons survived longer themselves or, if they
were male, had more than one wife. In (regular) chimps the alpha male
(who is often intelligent) might prevent lower ranking apes mating. Not
sure if that had a counterpart in humanity or that we were always more
like bonobos.
For some other (fictional) counterexamples see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't think it has *ever* been the case that intelligent people had
>> more children.
>
> Unless the intelligent persons survived longer themselves or, if they
> were male, had more than one wife. In (regular) chimps the alpha male
> (who is often intelligent) might prevent lower ranking apes mating. Not
> sure if that had a counterpart in humanity or that we were always more
> like bonobos.
> For some other (fictional) counterexamples see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur
I'm thinking of the wealthy aristocracy who had maybe one or two
children, verses the starving peasents who had dozens, most of whom died
within months of being born. (Assuming they survived birth.)
But sure, I don't have any actual statistics. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Except climate... we f***ed that one up.
> >
> > http://xkcd.com/603/
>
> I don't think it has *ever* been the case that intelligent people had
> more children. (Quite the converse, actually.) Possibly more of them
> *survived*, but that's a different statement. ;-)
>
Yes it is a false premise but that’s the intelligencia (sp?) for you. :)
> Also: Nice hat.
>
> Last time I went outside in a hat, I got asked out. By a boy. o_O
And?
Did you accept?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm thinking of the wealthy aristocracy who had maybe one or two
> children, verses the starving peasents who had dozens, most of whom died
> within months of being born. (Assuming they survived birth.)
>
> But sure, I don't have any actual statistics. ;-)
I think that you are wrong there. After the Black Death everyone tried for the
largest family they could beget. Remember that contraception was quite
primitive and having children was positively encouraged by the church.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Except climate... we f***ed that one up.
The evidence that we have had any significant effect on the planet's
climate is far from conclusive.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The evidence that we have had any significant effect on the planet's
> climate is far from conclusive.
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.
I'm prone to think that's like claiming that the most polluted rivers
in the world being so polluted is just a coincidence and not caused by
humans.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm thinking of the wealthy aristocracy who had maybe one or two
> children, verses the starving peasents who had dozens, most of whom died
> within months of being born. (Assuming they survived birth.)
>
> But sure, I don't have any actual statistics. ;-)
Oh, you mean legitimate children? If you count the illegitimate
children then I'd guess this recent urban myth is way wrong.
All the hot chicks want to sleep with the rich guys.
There does seem to be a link between the unavailability
of birth control in 3rd world countries and the birth rate,
but I'm sure there's plenty of smart but poor people there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
I attribute increased CO² to deforestation in the third world.
CO² acts as a fertilizer for plants which affix the carbon.
Less plants means more CO².
I'm unsure what the actual CO² output was
historically, they used to burn a lot of wood and
coal though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:08:20 -0700, Tim Attwood wrote:
> CO²
I think you'll find that the (2) should be subscripted. ;-)
<scnr>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> The evidence that we have had any significant effect on the planet's
>> climate is far from conclusive.
>
> 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.
>
> I'm prone to think that's like claiming that the most polluted rivers
> in the world being so polluted is just a coincidence and not caused by
> humans.
>
Haven't you heard. Just saw today on Faux News (Didn't have a choice
watching it, I was waiting for a cab in the place that does TV repair
and they had that channel on) the experts are using "old data", and
tempuratures have actually gone "down" in the last few years! Sigh...
This is the problem with idiots. They a) don't comprehend trends, b)
can't comprehend statistics at all (witness William Dumskis' mangling of
his own math on the odds of random gene expression), and/or c) don't
quite get that, even if they where right, such a relatively short
"shift" isn't natural either, and you know... if the average temp each
year was 80 degrees, it wouldn't matter *at all* if the opposite ends,
due to unstable weather, was -150 and +200, in places that used to be
40->120... Mind, that is only if their data is even right, and not the
equivalent of the same BS they use for say teen pregnancies, or the
like. You know, ignore 4 states of conservatives with average first
pregnancy in the 13-15 range, in favor of a few hundred students, in one
city, 5,000 miles away, which is also mostly far more liberal, then
claim that it proved "abstinence", when the program has only run on year
at the school, but they are using 3 years of "data", which actually
shows an "increase" after the program started, besides. lol
Ok, so, I don't have specifics on such a case, but it "is" the trend.
Its never comprehensive data, its always cherry picked to support their
position, while throwing out contrary data, and its "always" focused on
groups, places, situations, which they "know" they will get data from
that supports their position. Its faith based science. Decide what you
want to be true, pray you find the evidence, then only collect, or
analyze, the data that supports the original premise. And, when it
doesn't, they try "real" hard to sweep it under the carpet, insists they
need more time to get better data, and/or lie about what the data
actually did say. (Just like abstinence programs, the "war on rugs {yes,
that's intentional, and about as useful}, or the 'controversy' over
evolution, which they can't even find enough people to support to have
more names than the number of scientists named Steve that think they are
total idiots).
But, truth is, most people are not smart or stupid, and are too busy
looking for their own survival to worry much about who is and isn't.
Smart people "usually" don't lead, unless they are a serious hang up
with "needing" to do so, they let someone else take the lead, with the
promise that, as long as left alone to be smart, the dummy they partner
with will reap rewards from it. Unfortunately, the people "most likely"
to want to lead are the sort that "are" stupid. Because, as a rule,
proven via studies of people at universities, incompetent people,
overestimate their own skill, knowledge and abilities, to the point of
imagining themselves right, even in the face of evidence that they are
dead wrong. They are more likely to insist that you failed them due to
jealousy, or hate, or persecution, than due to their inability to pass
the damn test. Smart, competent, people are **very** aware of their own
limits, to the extent that they will almost "always" underestimate their
abilities, ideas, solutions, beliefs and/or imagine false dangers from
possible results of their actions.
If someone is "sure" of something, they are probably not someone you
should listen to. The more sure they are, unless they can also provide
"facts" that are "convincing" to prove their certainty, the more likely
they are to have no actual clue at all about what they are talking
about. Its why climate denialists are 100% sure they are right, while
climate experts are, "reasonably sure, based on the evidence, but we
could be wrong, so we are collecting more data".
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> tempuratures have actually gone "down" in the last few years! Sigh...
Well, to be fair, on the other hand, a lot of the projections are huge
variations in the future. It's not like everyone is working with solid data
and some people are making things up. Everyone's making up projections, so
even small variations in what's going on now can modify tremendously the future.
It's not like scientists haven't gone overboard making up projections
before. See "Nuclear winter".
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-6-2009 2:08, 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.
>
> I attribute increased CO² to deforestation in the third world.
> CO² acts as a fertilizer for plants which affix the carbon.
> Less plants means more CO².
>
> I'm unsure what the actual CO² output was
> historically,
much, much less. Simply because there were less people. I am pretty sure
that if you keep the population at historical levels of a few million
you can reach an equilibrium.
> they used to burn a lot of wood and coal though.
yes to cook mostly and in the colder regions to keep warm in the winter.
Burning of fuel was less efficient and I don't know if that compensates
for increased mobility and use of electricity around the house. My guess
would be that an average US citizen does burn more carbon than, say, the
average San or Inuit. I might be brainwashed by extreme left wing
journalists though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-6-2009 5:57, Darren New wrote:
> It's not like scientists haven't gone overboard making up projections
> before. See "Nuclear winter".
I might have missed it, but I think we haven't had a nuclear war yet to
test that one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would like to formally apologize for referencing a web-comic with such
a controversial punch-line. Even if it did make me snort juice up my
nose :)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, to be fair, on the other hand, a lot of the projections are huge
> variations in the future. It's not like everyone is working with solid
> data and some people are making things up. Everyone's making up
> projections, so even small variations in what's going on now can modify
> tremendously the future.
I wonder if scientists factor in human behaviour changes because on climate
change reports into their projections? :-)
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.
>
> I attribute increased CO² to deforestation in the third world.
> CO² acts as a fertilizer for plants which affix the carbon.
> Less plants means more CO².
...which would still mean that humans caused the rise of CO2...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> The evidence that we have had any significant effect on the planet's
>> climate is far from conclusive.
>
> 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.
Well, nobody's arguing against that.
What many people are arguing is that the evidence for catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming is far from conclusive, and that an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is actually beneficial overall.
These many people include thousands of scientists with bachelors,
masters, and doctorate degrees in climatology, computer science,
physics, chemistry, engineering, and biology.
The idea that there is a consensus among scientists on this issue is false.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> much, much less. Simply because there were less people.
I think the problem is not so much the number of people burning stuff as it
is the mining of carbon in the form of oil and coal that has been buried
since before humanity arose. No matter how much wood you burn, the forests
will turn it back into wood. But if you burn 100 forests worth of carbon,
the one forest nearby will have trouble keeping up.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 30-6-2009 5:57, Darren New wrote:
>
>> It's not like scientists haven't gone overboard making up projections
>> before. See "Nuclear winter".
>
> I might have missed it, but I think we haven't had a nuclear war yet to
> test that one.
No, but Sagan and Feynman and the other scientists who talked about it have
admitted they made the whole thing up.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4a4a38fd$1@news.povray.org...
> No, but Sagan and Feynman and the other scientists who talked about it
> have admitted they made the whole thing up.
The WP page about nuclear winter seems to indicate that while the concept is
debated it's still supported by contemporary research (what is under debate
is how dramatic it would be, which is what one would expect from a
mathematical model) and that the main critic was a guy writing survival
books. Also, there's a paper here
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html about the comments by
Dyson, Feynman and others where the author re-interviewed them a few years
later with interesting results. In a nutshell, just like creationism and
global warming today, it seems that this was instrumentalised in the US for
local political gain by the usual suspects, which is probably why these
"controversies" don't seem to cross the Atlantic and Pacific (or lose
considerable strength when they arrive on the other side).
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> I think the problem is not so much the number of people burning stuff as
> it is the mining of carbon in the form of oil and coal that has been
> buried since before humanity arose. No matter how much wood you burn,
> the forests will turn it back into wood. But if you burn 100 forests
> worth of carbon, the one forest nearby will have trouble keeping up.
>
Speaking of oil, buried under the oceans since before humanity arose, I
honestly think that humans have done nature a kind of favor with digging
it up slowly and letting the nature to keep up at least somehow. I mean,
the oil is generated under some kind of pressure and if humans wouldn't
pump it up, it would be freed by some clitch on the Earth oslt and most
probably a big amount of raw oil would spill into the ocean from the bottom.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> tempuratures have actually gone "down" in the last few years! Sigh...
>
> Well, to be fair, on the other hand, a lot of the projections are huge
> variations in the future. It's not like everyone is working with solid
> data and some people are making things up. Everyone's making up
> projections, so even small variations in what's going on now can modify
> tremendously the future.
>
> It's not like scientists haven't gone overboard making up projections
> before. See "Nuclear winter".
>
Yeah, well. Projections tend to be, you know.. not accurate.. lol
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. Heck,
based on data and theory we do have, the last two ice ages where a
result of disruptions in water flow in the oceans, in large part. I.e.,
if you disrupt the ability of warm water to shift north, and cold south,
in the normal pattern, you get "no" warm water going north, and the ice
formed thicker. Fix that, and it starts melting, until... well, you get
another smaller disruption, (when the great lakes melted enough to dump
into the ocean and cool the water by a huge margin again), whoops,
mini-ice age, until it fixes itself again.
What they don't grasp is the bigger picture, and the fact that "short
term" drastic shifts can happen, due to normal water/weather patterns
being disrupted, leading to "pockets" of areas where the results get all
screwed up from normal.
You even get the same thing "locally" when building cities. Doing so
will either increase, or decrease, reflected heat, lowering or raising
the air temperature over the buildings, and significantly altering the
local rain fall and weather patterns. Maybe if where I live, in Lake
Havasu, AZ, without all the buildings, it would only be 110 degrees, not
120? Who knows, but the presence of buildings, and parking lots, changes
what the "result" is over the city, so odds are, it has "some" effect.
But, these people can't grasp the big picture, never mind grasp the
"small" local ones.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-6-2009 18:10, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> much, much less. Simply because there were less people.
>
> I think the problem is not so much the number of people burning stuff as
> it is the mining of carbon in the form of oil and coal that has been
> buried since before humanity arose. No matter how much wood you burn,
> the forests will turn it back into wood. But if you burn 100 forests
> worth of carbon, the one forest nearby will have trouble keeping up.
>
It is of course both the number of people and what they burn. My point
was simply that if the number of people had not risen so much there is a
good change that nature would have been able to accommodate burning of
the limited amount of coal by these people. e.g. by sinking it in the
ocean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-6-2009 18:53, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de
> news:4a4a38fd$1@news.povray.org...
>> No, but Sagan and Feynman and the other scientists who talked about it
>> have admitted they made the whole thing up.
I never heard that story.
> The WP page about nuclear winter seems to indicate that while the
> concept is debated it's still supported by contemporary research (what
> is under debate is how dramatic it would be, which is what one would
> expect from a mathematical model) and that the main critic was a guy
> writing survival books. Also, there's a paper here
> http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html about the
> comments by Dyson, Feynman and others where the author re-interviewed
> them a few years later with interesting results. In a nutshell, just
> like creationism and global warming today, it seems that this was
> instrumentalised in the US for local political gain by the usual
> suspects, which is probably why these "controversies" don't seem to
> cross the Atlantic and Pacific (or lose considerable strength when they
> arrive on the other side).
but that may be because they didn't.
Here we also have that ugly beast of truth on the internet rearing it's
head. Who can we believe?
Interesting story nevertheless.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-6-2009 13:40, John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> The evidence that we have had any significant effect on the planet's
>>> climate is far from conclusive.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, nobody's arguing against that.
>
> What many people are arguing is that the evidence for catastrophic
> anthropogenic global warming is far from conclusive, and that an
> increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is actually beneficial overall.
> These many people include thousands of scientists with bachelors,
> masters, and doctorate degrees in climatology, computer science,
> physics, chemistry, engineering, and biology.
>
> The idea that there is a consensus among scientists on this issue is false.
There is a general consensus that there is anthropogenic global warming,
what is in discussion is whether it will be catastrophic. Some believe
it definitely will be, some don't and a majority thinks that we should
not take the risk. I have never heard a serious argument that it is
beneficial, other than in the pub, but I am not living in the USA.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
>>
>> I attribute increased CO² to deforestation in the third world.
>> CO² acts as a fertilizer for plants which affix the carbon.
>> Less plants means more CO².
>
> ...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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Except climate... we f***ed that one up.
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/603/
>
> I don't think it has *ever* been the case that intelligent people had
> more children. (Quite the converse, actually.) Possibly more of them
> *survived*, but that's a different statement. ;-)
I remember my biology teacher saying it's ironic that protozoa (unicellular
life form), when lacking nutrients around them, produce some solid
substance around them and "hibernate" (that dissolves if they get back in
water), and if they have good amounts of nutrients around them, reproduce.
In contrast, poor humans have more children than rich humans. How does this
make sense, aren't humans supposed to be *smarter*?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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.
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.
>>>
>>> I attribute increased CO² to deforestation in the third world.
>>> CO² acts as a fertilizer for plants which affix the carbon.
>>> Less plants means more CO².
>>
>> ...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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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...)
Global, global, global! *
Yeah, of course it's dry and hot in the desert. I wonder why
people live there.
*
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/wild-turkey.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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,
It looks quite high to me:
http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg
Around 375 ppmv today compared to the usual cycle of 200-300 ppmv over the
last half a million years.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> Yeah, of course it's dry and hot in the desert. I wonder why
> people live there.
"""
The poor people there don't need foreign aid! They live in a dessert! They
need luggage! Send them all a plane ticket!
"""
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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,
>
> It looks quite high to me:
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg
>
> Around 375 ppmv today compared to the usual cycle of 200-300 ppmv over the
> last half a million years.
By some estimates mamals have existed at times when it was over 2000 ppm.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/11/06/science/earth/20061107_CO2_GRAPHIC.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Around 375 ppmv today compared to the usual cycle of 200-300 ppmv over
>> the last half a million years.
>
> By some estimates mamals have existed at times when it was over 2000 ppm.
Sure, but the question is if 6 billion humans covering the Earth could
survive such a change.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> There is a general consensus that there is anthropogenic global warming,
A general consensus means that everyone, or nearly everyone, agrees.
In the case of AGW, the agreement level simply does not reach this
level. There are literally *thousands* of scientists, in fields which
qualify them to hold meaningful opinions, who do not agree that mankind
is causing a long-term increase in global temperatures.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> 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).
This is mostly because any change will affect some people negatively.
However, any geologists can confirm that over its history, the
temperatures of the earth have varied far beyond the levels that AGW
proponents are warning. The history of the earth is dotted not only
with periods that are significantly warmer or colder than the planet is
now, but also rapid shifts in temperatures as well.
This was not good for all of the animals; but others survived and
flourished.
I'm not worried. The existence of reality TV notwithstanding, the human
race is smart enough to cope.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> However, any geologists can confirm that over its history, the
> temperatures of the earth have varied far beyond the levels that AGW
> proponents are warning.
I heave read that the middle ages were basically caused to a large extent by
a cooling of several degrees, making crops grow more poorly, reducing the
amount of time people had to be intellectual. Whether the temperature trends
are true or propaganda from the opposing team, or whether even if true it
was a causal relationship, are left as exercises for the reader.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-7-2009 14:35, John VanSickle wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> This is mostly because any change will affect some people negatively.
If it leads to large scale crop failures some people may be negatively
affected by dying. It is up to everybody themselves to decide how many
is still acceptable. Whether a few hundred million is too much or if the
human race can easily cope with 5, 10, or even 50% reduction. You might
even argue that 90% would be advantageous for humanity as a race, as
there are now more people than the earth can easily handle. Note that
being one of the probable survivors or being one that is likely to
perish might influence an otherwise objective reasoning.
> However, any geologists can confirm that over its history, the
> temperatures of the earth have varied far beyond the levels that AGW
> proponents are warning. The history of the earth is dotted not only
> with periods that are significantly warmer or colder than the planet is
> now, but also rapid shifts in temperatures as well.
>
> This was not good for all of the animals; but others survived and
> flourished.
I am not worried that life will be able to cope with any change in
climate, but most people are concerned about humanity, or more precise
with humanity being able to continue their way of living. One of the key
differences with earlier climate changes during human's history might be
that the ecosystems are already very much stressed.
>
> I'm not worried. The existence of reality TV notwithstanding, the human
> race is smart enough to cope.
Some people will find solutions and be able to afford them. If it is not
too severe you and me and everybody else in Europe and the USA are
probably safe. Regions probably at risk are Africa and parts of Asia.
(At least as long as the economic situation remains approximately the
same.) So if we decide that these people are not really relevant we can
decide that we agree on most things and wrap up this discussion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
