|
On September 28 2013 04:09 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective. So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then? Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"? Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific. I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former.
|
I agree with the Swede but the biggest argument against this is that entitlements would suffer. Would you rather live in a shack and poverty and be able to reproduce all you want or live in a mansion with nice things and not be able to? I find it interesting that you would rather have the next generation live in the former.
|
Just wanted to point out that during the Mesozoic the globe was essentially a swamp. Average temperatures were higher than today by about 10°C. By the middle Cretaceous, equatorial ocean waters were as warm as 20°C in the deep ocean. Ocean waters were displaced by as much as 200 m (656 ft).
The Mesozoic era began in the wake of the Permian–Triassic extinction event, the largest well-documented mass extinction in Earth's history (approx. 99.6% of all species went extinct).
Those who claim the small flux in our current environment to be destructive seem to forget that during the Mesozoic, the first non-avian dinosaurs, birds, and mammals all flourished.
News flash: the climate is has always been, and will always be, in flux.
"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." --Chuck Palahnuik, Fight Club
|
I just wanted to say you made a really nice OP.
This is very interesting, thanks for sharing.
|
On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:09 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective. So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then? Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"? Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific. I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. Yes, because the government would not support your excessive production of offspring you would be a slave. An incomprehensible comparison.
We have rules about what you can dump in the water because of the common good, because sensible people realise that clean water is kind of essential. I don't see how having rules about how many children you can churn out and still expect to receive support would be so much worse. We are riddled with rules about our children save for how many of them we can have, the most important part.
|
Ah, with all of these types of "Reports", let's go over the important details skipped over:
1) The Sun. Last time anyone checked, that huge ball of Nuclear Fusion isn't the most consistent producer of energy. 2) Paleoclimate record makes all of the complaints still look stupid. (More CO2 would be better for crops, actually) 3) "Confidence Intervals in Data Sets" destroy anything the want claim from them. The short answer is they can't draw anything from their data sets like they want to. This is why "statistics" is one of the best ways to lie about things. 4) Their own numbers say temperatures have been flat for 15 years, yet pollution levels haven't dropped (mostly due to China & India), which is what has killed all of their models.
And, the flip side problems of complete misalignment of priorities:
1) Humans cease to exist and the planet will still "Warm", by their own models. 2) Actual pollution *IS* an issue and it does massive damage, but that wouldn't act as penance by the First World Countries. 3) Pollution is still very much a society wealth proxy, which has a whole lot more to do with the government system & the culture than any perceived environmental issue. These are things that can never be uttered openly. 4) The Politicians would respond with personal changes if they actually believed it was an issue. (They normally fly to the conferences on "Climate Change" on government-paid private jets. Nice gig, really.) 5) Neither China nor India are stupid enough to implement the changes that it would take to make a dent in the increase in their GHG production. They don't want their entire government regimes to fall. 6) Fracking & next-gen Nuclear Reactors are still the near-term best way to limit emissions. And if someone could find a way to cut Coal-fired Power Planet emissions by 75% with a brand new design, they really could change part of the world.
In the end, it'll be as it has been since the fear mongering started in the 90s. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Well, at least some paychecks for a few people & emotional penance for others.
|
It must be frightening to live in a world in which one can assume that establishment science has ignored the sun.
|
On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote: I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. When you cut through the sentimental hyperbole, what you're really saying is that you'd rather everyone on the planet dies than we introduce a Chinese-style one-child policy.
|
It is very interesting that they now consider humans to be the dominant factor in the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
But. What does it really mean?
The earth warms and cools on its own and the environment is always changing on its own. So, what impact will our slight warming actually have? I'm interested to see what will happen if the predicted climate change occurs. I don't think much will change, other than animals relocating (which already happens).
|
On September 28 2013 04:50 Taf the Ghost wrote: In the end, it'll be as it has been since the fear mongering started in the 90s.
Dismissing climate change as fear mongering. Entire post is invalid.
I also suggest you look at figures in China and realize that the stringent pollution laws ran thousands of manufacturing companies out of business (I would know, because my family is directly affected by these laws) who could not afford reallocation and the millions of dollars necessary to implement pollution reducing measures, and that reducing pollution in China has so little to do with whether or not the central government would maintain control of the country, but everything to do with the social and economical mentalities of the entire world regarding pollution and amassing private wealth. Many of the top polluters and violators of pollution laws are outsourced subsidiaries of western corporations who also dismiss the severity of the situation just as you are.
|
I always thought global warming was primarily do to the suns activity.. Is there an article out there that studied the temperature of other planets in our solar system? If temperatures on other planets are rising just like ours then It would make a strong case that the sun is the main contributor.
Also, I guess it would be more beneficial for us to believe that we are causing it seeing as how we feel like we can possibly reduce rising temperatures on our planet. As opposed to the sun which we have no really no control over what so ever.
|
On September 28 2013 03:32 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote: If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss. You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe. I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed.
You accuse me of having a narrow view when you don't realise it's not Europe or America that has the biggest population on this planet. I named the countries/areas and they are poor, hence have to have many children that support their elders. I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, maybe travelling would have you get educated and more mature.
Pretty easy to say others should see the big picture when they struggle to survive on a day to day basis.
"Modern world", lol.
|
On September 27 2013 23:11 Pandemona wrote:Would prefer Humans "Attribute" to Climate Change because that what the report says xD They said it,s 95% certain Humans have "contributed" to Climate Change with Pollution etc, and that the global sea level will rise by 80cm before the end of the century. Dominant? I don't think that is the right wording Show nested quote +The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), delivered in Stockholm, warns that it is now 95% certain that global temperatures are rising and that human activity is to blame. Is how i see it, that they just contribute. They can't pin point the exact cause of climate change, but they know pollution effects it as well as Show nested quote + The IPCC is under pressure from governments to explain why the rise in global surface temperatures has stalled over the last 15 years. Sceptics argue it is evidence computer models of the climate are wrong. But scientists counter that the planet warms in fits and starts. They point to evidence that an upwelling of cold water in the Pacific Ocean has absorbed heat from the atmosphere - but that is only temporary.
Another quote that needs addressing fast is who is right and what isn't. Show nested quote +This is unwelcome news so people want to shoot the messenger," he said. "What people tend to do is look at some little piece of the jigsaw and say 'look this demonstrates that it's not real or it's not happening' and then they feel better because they don't have to worry about it. "But the whole exercise that the IPCC is going through is to look at the whole picture and see the general patterns that emerge. It's the pattern in the reduction of snow and ice and increasing temperature that says there is something odd going on here." Another point that needs watching closely, the way the Earth flexes in climate has been going on for YEARS. I watched a famous documentary on it from Professor Hawking back a few years ago when he was on about the North and South Pole locations change geometrically which can help contribute to crazy weather patterns and also they predicted that this is the reason for ice ages. The only evidence they have or theory i can't remember the exact wording, is that the polar shift theory is the axis of the earth moves, and over the 200million years they predict it has moved by 55 degrees. Thus this the reason for the random weather events. But it is obviously more complex than just that, but it is also another reason you can throw into the occasion and i prefer to put my eggs into this basket as well as pollution being a problem. This discussion can go on all day and night with me as i just don't understand how we have came some 150years of using heavy polluting machines/cars etcetc and it is still getting worst and worst? Industrial revolution was just a tiny bit less than the pollution we have produced this year or since the last record of data yet we are saying that is the reason? But what about the 100 years prior to this day why wasn't it getting worst back then? It is very interesting! Pole Shift Hypothesis
Well said.
An article covering this publication also mentioned how the downplayed the pause in Global Warming that has occurred in the last 15 years.
I don't know what it is about this subject, but I can't seem to trust any news or studies unless I can see the actual data and its source. I feel like Climate science has the highest likeliness for researchers to manipulate their data, though I don't really understand why, or why it's so politicized.
This discussion can go on all day and night with me as i just don't understand how we have came some 150years of using heavy polluting machines/cars etcetc and it is still getting worst and worst? Industrial revolution was just a tiny bit less than the pollution we have produced this year or since the last record of data yet we are saying that is the reason? But what about the 100 years prior to this day why wasn't it getting worst back then? It is very interesting!
This is a little confusing. You ask why global warming wasn't get worse 100 years ago at the same rate it is today (although apparently global warming hasn't gotten worse since 1998 according to this study), but you answer that yourself in your previous sentence. "The whole industrial revolution was just a tiny bit less than the pollution we have produced this year." So there you go, we are much heavier polluters now days, but like I mentioned in parenthesis above, and which is something I didn't know before today, we aren experiencing a pause in global warming. Someone correct me on that if I read it wrong in the publication.
On September 28 2013 02:18 tertos wrote: My opinion based on what I experience as a single individual is that the global warming is caused by agriculture and urbanization.
It is well know the fact that the heat transfer is made in 3 ways: conduction, convection and radiation. We are interested in heat transfer by radiation since our sun is not directly or indirectly to earth. It is also well known that the color of the surface of irradiated object has a strong influence in heat transfer due to radiation absorption/refraction. (try wearing a black versus a white shirt in the summer)
So where does that leave us? The urbanization came with an ever increase length in roads. In the last century the surface covered by asphalt has increased exponential. You can notice the effect quite easily by alternating moving between a medium size city and country side during summers. .
@tertos
As interesting as that theory is, that would suggest that the change in heat would not occur at the same rate or at all in uninhabited areas... yet that's clearly not what's happening. If only urbanized areas were affected, no one would be worried about the polar ice caps melting, or ocean temperatures rising. So...
|
On September 28 2013 05:39 zdfgucker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 03:32 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote: If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss. You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe. I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed. You accuse me of having a narrow view when you don't realise it's not Europe or America that has the biggest population on this planet. I named the countries/areas and they are poor, hence have to have many children that support their elders. I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, maybe travelling would have you get educated and more mature. Pretty easy to say others should see the big picture when they struggle to survive on a day to day basis. "Modern world", lol. You make an awful lot of assumptions and then argue from the absurd premise you set up. I am perfectly aware of the current demographic. You named nothing, you made some vague reference to "poor places" which means a lot of nothing. I''ve been to every continent in the world except Australia, and not just the tourist tracks either. I've studied population trends for years, because I think it matters. Your weak, sanctimonious attempts at insults are so off the mark. You understand nothing of human nature and are completely blind to anything that goes beyond your insular little world of rich and poor. How simple it must be to live in such a black and white landscape.
And how on earth does having a lot of children helping them survive on a day to day basis? You seem not to grasp even the basis of the longer view, you are stuck in some mental hamster wheel where the only thing that can help is more children to continue the same destructive pattern that is doing immense damage to our planet. "Support their elders"? You really think that is a viable model? Mass production of children to to lean on once you grow old? You honestly cannot see the massive gaping hole in that reasoning?
Yes, your view is narrow indeed, this goes beyond anyone alive today, or tomorrow. But you go ahead and sit there on your high horse, just try not to get too lonely up there at the peak of Mount Moral Paragon.
|
You make an awful lot of assumptions and then argue from the absurd premise you set up. I am perfectly aware of the current demographic. You named nothing, you made some vague reference to "poor places" which means a lot of nothing. I''ve been to every continent in the world except Australia, and not just the tourist tracks either. I've studied population trends for years, because I think it matters. Your weak, sanctimonious attempts at insults are so off the mark. You understand nothing of human nature and are completely blind to anything that goes beyond your insular little world of rich and poor. How simple it must be to live in such a black and white landscape.
This. Is. Awesome.
I picture an Alec Baldwin movie where he finally loses it and verbally owns the antagonist.
And how on earth does having a lot of children helping them survive on a day to day basis? You seem not to grasp even the basis of the longer view, you are stuck in some mental hamster wheel where the only thing that can help is more children to continue the same destructive pattern that is doing immense damage to our planet. "Support their elders"? You really think that is a viable model? Mass production of children to to lean on once you grow old? You honestly cannot see the massive gaping hole in that reasoning?
While it is true that many cultures today have children to help support them (think free labor for the farm, and social security for later in life), the poor places that are relevant here are heavy populated regions, like Bangladesh or India, not rural areas, and in those places more children are most often resultant of no contraception, and each additional child places a burden on the family since they generally can't find work or provide families with useful duties to the extent needed to counterbalance their needs.
|
Well, the good news is that once this problem gets bad enough humans will just start dying off en masse, so after a few thousand years and a few billion deaths it should start to correct itself.
|
On September 28 2013 05:46 Sefer wrote: So there you go, we are much heavier polluters now days, but like I mentioned in parenthesis above, and which is something I didn't know before today, we aren experiencing a pause in global warming. Someone correct me on that if I read it wrong in the publication. There hasn't been a "pause" in global warming; it's just that the rate has been unusually slow the last 15 years compared with the trend since 1951. The average temperature of the Earth always fluctuates. The important question is what is the "secular", non-varying, long-term contribution to global warming?
|
On September 28 2013 06:05 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:46 Sefer wrote: So there you go, we are much heavier polluters now days, but like I mentioned in parenthesis above, and which is something I didn't know before today, we aren experiencing a pause in global warming. Someone correct me on that if I read it wrong in the publication. There hasn't been a "pause" in global warming; it's just that the rate has been unusually slow the last 15 years compared with the trend since 1951. The average temperature of the Earth always fluctuates. The important question is what is the "secular", non-varying, long-term contribution to global warming?
Well the article I read used the term "pause", but even if it was a decrease in the rate of warming in the last 15 years, that would seem counterintuitive if we are to buy in the the theory that green-house gases are the cause, right? I wouldn't be surprised if we produce more pollution in 1 year now than in 10-20 years in 1951 and decades following.
|
On September 28 2013 06:02 Sefer wrote: This. Is. Awesome. I picture an Alec Baldwin movie where he finally loses it and verbally owns the antagonist. I failed to rein in my temper more than I would like. Still, the Alec Baldwin comparison is very flattering.
While it is true that many cultures today have children to help support them (think free labor for the farm, and social security for later in life), the poor places that are relevant here are heavy populated regions, like Bangladesh or India, not rural areas, and in those places more children are most often resultant of no contraception, and each additional child places a burden on the family since they generally find work or provide families with useful duties to the extent needed to counterbalance their needs.
Indeed, every new child born is one that has to be clothed, fed, housed, educated, employed etc. Lack of education and local superstitious nonsense and outdated traditions ensure that the destructive pattern continues, and we just pile more weight on the back of our already strained planet.
|
On September 28 2013 05:19 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote: I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. When you cut through the sentimental hyperbole, what you're really saying is that you'd rather everyone on the planet dies than we introduce a Chinese-style one-child policy.
On September 28 2013 04:31 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:20 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 04:09 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 04:01 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:It has to start somewhere, and if humans in general are too stupid and self-centered to set aside their own impulsive desires then someone will have to make that decision for them. Honestly, I wouldn't want to live or bring children into a world like that. I guess that makes your plan effective. So what's your magical solution then? If there is no miracle technology to provide us with an abundance of clean energy, if people don't want to give up things like cars, running water, the internet, cheap food in the grocery store etc, if we continue to reproduce at breakneck pace, what then? Crash and burn, leave a post it note for our great grandchildren that says "sorry guys, we kinda messed up, I think there are some snickers bars buried under the rubble of Buckingham Palace, good luck"? Every time I make this point, I'm met by the same objection, essentially "you're mean!". I just like looking at reality the way it is. If anyone has any alternative solutions they would be more than welcome. Apparently having less children to try to ensure that the ones we actually do produce have something to eat and clean air to breathe is absolutely inhumane and horrific. I'm just saying, if the options are "sorry kids, we ruined your environment" or "sorry kids, you are slaves to overlords because we decided you would be too stupid to make your own decisions," I'd lean heavily toward the former. Yes, because the government would not support your excessive production of offspring you would be a slave. An incomprehensible comparison. We have rules about what you can dump in the water because of the common good, because sensible people realise that clean water is kind of essential. I don't see how having rules about how many children you can churn out and still expect to receive support would be so much worse. We are riddled with rules about our children save for how many of them we can have, the most important part. I love how you narrow the entire argument down to reproduction. Obviously that wasn't the only thing I was referring to, and obviously when you talk about "stupid humans" you are referring to more than our propensity to reproduce a lot. If the choice is authoritarian statism or a damaged environment, I'll take a damaged environment.
|
|
|
|