Global warming

[KimB]

Jesus! Can we stop the personal insults and religion here? I'm far more intelligent than you, but do you ever see me use that against you? I do try to respect you anyway.

Bahahaha. Riiiight.

Look, you and the people on your side of the debate stop posting stupid shit, and we'll stop calling you on it. See? Simple.

 

[KimB]

Eh, why?

I mean, there's an endless list of things humanity has done over the millennia, for good or bad, depending on many criteria. What makes the amount of CO2 so special?

Uhhh, we're talking about precipitating a change to the climate of the Earth that, if we do not act, will be as great in magnitude as the change from the last ice age. Humans have made some pretty severe impacts on the planet, but most of them are local in nature. Only one other change that I can think of has been global (CFC emissions), and certainly none are as great in magnitude as this.

Like, by increasing all that CO2, at the least we didn't turn the whole world into a Sahara desert by chopping down all the trees. Which is what we did before finding oil and burning all those hydrocarbons.

Er, what? Since when did we chop down all the trees? Why would we have ever done that?

 

[Frank]

Bahahaha. Riiiight.

Look, you and the people on your side of the debate stop posting stupid shit, and we'll stop calling you on it. See? Simple.

Ah, so winning and beating the opponents into submission beats learning something new? I can see you going far in your chosen field, as a politician.

But not as a scientist.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Er, what? Since when did we chop down all the trees? Why would we have ever done that?

I think he's talking about using firewood for heat, but ya most deforestation has very little to do with heating. It's either about the lumber for construction or clearing the land for cash crops.

 

[Frank]

Uhhh, we're talking about precipitating a change to the climate of the Earth that, if we do not act, will be as great in magnitude as the change from the last ice age. Humans have made some pretty severe impacts on the planet, but most of them are local in nature. Only one other change that I can think of has been global (CFC emissions), and certainly none are as great in magnitude as this.

Yeah, I get the meme: humans can do anything! Even cause a new ice-age, or golden-age, as we desire! And so we should aim for the ice-age, as it's the only responsible thing to do!

Never go for the option that benefits everyone, leave that to the happy few. Otherwise, what would be the point of getting there?

Er, what? Since when did we chop down all the trees? Why would we have ever done that?

:drop pants smiley: You mean, you don't know? You don't even know how we created the Sahara desert?

Hrgbml. I always say those youngsters should get a decent education and learn about the mistakes made in the past, so they don't repeat them ad infinitum. But they never do! Hrmbl. Well, whatever. I give up. If they want to do so, let them! See if I care!. Hrmm. Bah.

 

[gamervivek]

So, no, I don't agree that we will be responsible for the extinction of many (or even most) species.

We already killed more than half of plants' :

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/worlds-plant-life-far-diverse-previously-thought/

 

[rpg.314]

And who's ideas would prevail, hm? Yours? You want to be dictator for life and kill all disbelievers? Like, the Spanish Inquisition?

Most dictators try to kill all intellectuals, as they make things difficult to run. Differing opinions are punishable by death!

Here is a hint: become a Muslim, and emigrate to Saudi Arabia. You will never be irritated by disbelievers ever again, as they simply receive the death sentence without much hassle.

And remember to be faithful at all times, or the same might happen to you!

There are two kinds of disbelievers, those who stick their heads in the sand when the truth is uncomfortable and get stuck in an infinite loop of denial. And there are those who object on basis of solid scientific data.

Find solid scientific reasons to object to AGW and we'll talk. I-dont-believe-we-have-the-power doesn't count as one.

You haven't posted a scrap of the latter in this thread. Chalnoth - and I - are against the former.

 

[rpg.314]

Who cares about reducing our carbon emissions? The military's job is to secure new resources for us if (that's a huge IF) our current resources get threatened by the effects of AGW.

So you are not satisfied with dragging entire humanity through hell for the sake of your own pleasures, you want to actively steal and rob on the basis of your military might when you run out of candies as well?


You sir, are amazing....

 

[rpg.314]

I'm far more intelligent than you, but do you ever see me use that against you? I do try to respect you anyway.

 

[rpg.314]

The amount of biomass won't change to any significant degree, whatsoever, even if the main lifeforms turn out to be humans, yeast, fungi and cockroaches.

Ok, now you have pissed off corduroygt, how will he eat meat. :smile:

OTOH, I guess he'll demand that his military kill humans on another continent so that his personal pleasures can be satisfied in such a situation.

 

[rpg.314]

"Can be". You mean, the unsuccessful ones? As in: measured by the average time the species roamed the Earth, and/or the total amount of bionass amassed in that species for a period of time?

So, you are beyond doubt sure that we caused the effect? That will be an interesting discussion.

So, you're saying that most species only exists for a short period of time, and if we don't make sure they keep on existing anyway, it's our fault they die out?

Not really, as everything else can be many different kinds and species of plants, and most of the food consumed by humans can be engineered (and for that you would want the yeast and fungi). It won't exist for long, and won't grow naturally, but might make up the bulk of the biomass if we had really many people living on this planet we needed to feed.

Garbage like this - not getting anything right - and then you say you are intelligent. You know what, about the only people who seem to deny AGW at this point seem to be total nutcases.

 

[Squilliam]

Eh, why?

I mean, there's an endless list of things humanity has done over the millennia, for good or bad, depending on many criteria. What makes the amount of CO2 so special?.

Food production vs population sizes vs development of certain countries pricing food out of reach of the poorest if theres a bad year for agricultural production.

I'm really curious, as I could name many things I consider having a higher impact to any kind of artificially defined system

Like, by increasing all that CO2, at the least we didn't turn the whole world into a Sahara desert by chopping down all the trees. Which is what we did before finding oil and burning all those hydrocarbons.

Or, in other words: burning oil was the best thing we did for the health of Mother Nature at the time we started doing so.

You could say that getting shot in the head has a higher impact on a person than having a hand chopped off. That doesn't mean that a person should be thankful for having their hand chopped off because the alternatives were worse.

If you abhor it, at least come up with a good alternative!

Nuclear power, renewable energy, mass transit, efficiency gains in industry/homes etc.

 

[3dilettante]

"Can be". You mean, the unsuccessful ones? As in: measured by the average time the species roamed the Earth, and/or the total amount of bionass amassed in that species for a period of time?

"Can be" as in that the rate of new species coming into being tends to be lower during periods of increasing diversity when compared to the rate of loss during extinction events.

So, you are beyond doubt sure that we caused the effect? That will be an interesting discussion.

For many of the larger animals, we have records of slaughtering them. The American Bison at one point rivaled or exceeded the population of the African Wildebeast.
The passenger pigeon once had flocks that all but blotted out the sun.
Today, the Bison is slowly crawling back from near annihilation. The passenger pigeon has gone the way of the dodo--another example of an animal hunted to extinction.
In earlier times, the wild auroch that was the progenitor for early cattle was eliminated.
Many tropical birds species have been hunted to extinction.
If you pick a species of whale at random, it is very likely it was almost obliterated.
Large animals and niche plants tend to suffer the most visibly.

So, you're saying that most species only exists for a short period of time, and if we don't make sure they keep on existing anyway, it's our fault they die out?

I'm saying that your sunny scenario where a mass die-off is just a welcome opportunity for us to find new animal friends is not achievable within a human time frame. If we wait several million years, we may see a decent repopulation in the number of new species. In human terms, that is sufficiently close to never as to be the same as absolute devastation.

Not really, as everything else can be many different kinds and species of plants, and most of the food consumed by humans can be engineered (and for that you would want the yeast and fungi). It won't exist for long, and won't grow naturally, but might make up the bulk of the biomass if we had really many people living on this planet we needed to feed.

A substantial portion of biomass must be composed of autotrophs. Since they are the means by which the biosphere can draw energy from the environment, all things that above them in the food chain are capped by the amount of energy that can be captured and the thermodynamic inefficiency of consumption and predation.

Overall, autotrophs outnumber heterotrophs. Yeast, fungi, cockroaches, and humans are not autotrophs, so if they were the dominant share of biomass, it would only last as long as it took to starve them to the level the autotrophs can sustain.

Ah, I expect you're assuming all those transports are launched from Earth, and all the resources are returned there.

Why would we do so? The Earth is but a tiny speck, considering the vastness of the whole Universe. A simple asteroid could destroy all life on it! Let alone a sun going nova in the vicinity, or whatever cosmic cataclysm you desire.

The realities of interplanetary and interstellar travel are heavily stacked against us.
The solar system outside of Earth is deeply inhospitable, and more prone to fail us than the Earth. The Earth would wind up supplying most of these far flung colonies with critical resources, more so than the other direction.

Interstellar travel is so daunting that barring incredibly advanced and unexpected technologies, we as a species may never seriously progress in it. It is so wildly beyond a reaonable timeframe that it is not worthwhile to consider it while discussing real concerns down here on Earth.

 

[corduroygt]

The US military at the height of the Iraq surge was at an unsustainable deployment level.
The Afghan deployment must inescapably be drawn down for similar reasons.

That's because the US military is trying to fight an unpopular and politically incorrect war in the most PC way possible.

If it was "we need to invade this country or we'll all starve to death" and that was true, all we needed to do would be to bomb them into oblivion, collateral damage be damned. It didn't come to that yet, thankfully, but when it does, we're all no better than animals. The US did it in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we won't hesitate to do it again if it comes to that. The human race is no more civil than it was a couple thousand years ago, we just have more resources to go around for everyone.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some data from Chalnoth about how global warming legislation would not be a significant cost to the poor and the middle class. The only Cap and Trade we need is to cap people pushing it.

 

[KimB]

Yeah, I get the meme: humans can do anything! Even cause a new ice-age, or golden-age, as we desire! And so we should aim for the ice-age, as it's the only responsible thing to do!

Er, what? Have you even looked at the science? Because from what you're saying here, it seems you haven't paid a lick of attention to it.

The difference between today's Earth and the last ice age was 6C. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, we could well precipitate a change of that same magnitude over the next couple of centuries.

:drop pants smiley: You mean, you don't know? You don't even know how we created the Sahara desert?

Um, we didn't. Human actions have expanded the size of the Sahara slightly. But the vast majority of the change has been due to slow climate change over the millennia (which we had nothing to do with).

 

[KimB]

That's because the US military is trying to fight an unpopular and politically incorrect war in the most PC way possible.

If it was "we need to invade this country or we'll all starve to death" and that was true, all we needed to do would be to bomb them into oblivion, collateral damage be damned. It didn't come to that yet, thankfully, but when it does, we're all no better than animals. The US did it in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we won't hesitate to do it again if it comes to that. The human race is no more civil than it was a couple thousand years ago, we just have more resources to go around for everyone.

Except bombing other countries will hardly prevent starvation. Rather, it will increase it. Wars may be fought over other resources, such as oil. But food? I don't think so.

By the way, I'm still waiting for some data from Chalnoth about how global warming legislation would not be a significant cost to the poor and the middle class. The only Cap and Trade we need is to cap people pushing it.

The thing is, I'm advocating not only legislation to fight climate change, but also legislation to improve the social safety net, and legislation to spur economic recovery. Taken as a package, the only people that would be worse off would be the super-rich, who don't deserve the money they have anyway (nobody can deserve that much money).

 

[Blazkowicz]

By the way, I'm still waiting for some data from Chalnoth about how global warming legislation would not be a significant cost to the poor and the middle class. The only Cap and Trade we need is to cap people pushing it.

for the poor it's easy. poors already use efficient technology (bicycles, dumb phones), use a computer monitor until it doesn't work, don't have A/C, can talk to people on the street for free, set up and attend concerts for free, give away stuff and services to each other.
they don't have much of a "life-style" to lose from energy-reducing actions but they also play a significant part in the non-GDP economy.

 

[KimB]

for the poor it's easy. poors already use efficient technology (bicycles, dumb phones), use a computer monitor until it doesn't work, don't have A/C, can talk to people on the street for free, set up and attend concerts for free, give away stuff and services to each other.
they don't have much of a "life-style" to lose from energy-reducing actions but they also play a significant part in the non-GDP economy.

There's also the point to be made that the poor stand to lose one hell of a lot more from climate change than those that earn more money.

 

[Squilliam]

There's also the point to be made that the poor stand to lose one hell of a lot more from climate change than those that earn more money.

I doubt that people in the U.S.A. for instance will conciously reduce their consumption of coffee, soy bean products etc in order to ensure that food remains affordable for the poorest in the world. Given the rise in food prices over the last few years, this doesn't appear to be the case. To be quite frank, so long as it happens in another country most people would let others starve to death.

 

[corduroygt]

The thing is, I'm advocating not only legislation to fight climate change, but also legislation to improve the social safety net, and legislation to spur economic recovery. Taken as a package, the only people that would be worse off would be the super-rich, who don't deserve the money they have anyway (nobody can deserve that much money).

So you're trying to hide the extra costs to me as a middle-class American by taxing my energy more but giving me more of a social net as a benefit. How about we take out the AGW part but keep everything else in there? I'd be even better off since I'd still get the social net benefits and also won't have to pay extra energy taxes. In fact AGW legislation will only help those that are outside of the US, since our poor will be spared from any effects due to the new social net. Why are you trying to make me pay to help non-Americans? I would never agree to that.

To be quite frank, so long as it happens in another country most people would let others starve to death.

Precisely.