Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
The only "wild speculation" i see here is the idea that, just because humans are the cause of the CO2 emissions of the past 50 years, somehow all of the negative feedback loops are just going to be like, "Well, shit, the humans are fucking shit up, we better kick it into overdrive" and suddenly start working hundreds or thousands of times faster than normal.
-
I think you actually made the sentence harder to understand.
Sorry, I'm a programmer and I think like a programmer. I've (partially) broken up my sentence into abstract syntax tree. Forgot that some people here aren't as computer-savvy as I and cannot parse those.
-
Let's ask another question: We know (for some definition of know) what the carbon dioxide concentrations were in the distant past. How do we know what the emission rates were?
Good question. We've only known on a theoretical level that CO2 even existed for the past 350 years or so.
The answer, of course, is bubbles. Gas bubbles, trapped in ice. We estimate the age of the ice, we determine how much CO2 is in the gas bubbles, and we make a pretty graph.
-
The answer, of course, is bubbles. Gas bubbles, trapped in ice. We estimate the age of the ice, we determine how much CO2 is in the gas bubbles, and we make a pretty graph.
So you're trying to back into it based on deltas in CO2 concentration. That's the answer I expected, and it implies that we really don't know because we only see the increases in output that couldn't be absorbed by other means.
-
Let's ask another question: We know (for some definition of know) what the carbon dioxide concentrations were in the distant past. How do we know what the emission rates were?
We don't, with any real degree of accuracy. However,
@antiquarian said:We know (for some definition of know) what the carbon dioxide concentrations were in the distant past
, and we know what the carbon dioxide concentrations are now, so we are able to compare the concentrations themselves, which is why the original source doesn't really matter that much. The human race has replaced the first step in the chain of events that led to mass extinctions. I would argue that we're actually more efficient not just at CO2 emissions but also at all other forms of wreaking death and destruction than most other natural disasters, too.
-
About a hundred million people around the world will be displaced in that time frame.
Gradually over a period of 85 years?
Honestly I don't see the issue. Hell, we can build dikes.
How many refugees are we already flipping out about having to deal with from the Syrian shit going on?
The thing is, wars can start in a matter of months. If Syria had 85 years worth of warning that these people would be displaced, I'm sure the situation would have been handled in a much cleaner way.
Or, more realistically, if instead of 100,000 people displaced this summer, it was instead 4705 people per year over 85 years (I think I did that math right...), I do not think anybody's social services would be strained handling that load right now.
-
That's the answer I expected, and it implies that we really don't know because we only see the increases in output that couldn't be absorbed by other means.
No, it doesn't mean we really don't know, because we're already seeing increases in concentration that can't be absorbed by other means in the current CO2 spike, anyway.
The fact that we're seeing an increase at all is evidence that we're producing CO2 faster than it can be absorbed.
-
I think he's missing a simple "a".
It's a more consistent theory than that government etc.
-
Honestly I don't see the issue. Hell, we can build dikes.
Because those are so reliable.
And you act like it will stop there. It probably won't. We'll still have plenty of ice to melt by 2100. Hell, most of the ice around the world will not have melted by then, unless the various ice sheets' current rate of accelerating melting increases.
-
Because those are so reliable.
They're pretty goddamned reliable. The only time they fail is when Nazis blow holes in them to slow down the Allies. Or when put under the control of corrupt Louisiana local government officials.
Even if they weren't reliable... uh... who cares? We could just move every single one of those displaced people to Utah where there's plenty of room and nobody'd notice. Except Utah would suddenly get a hell of a lot more classy.
-
We could just move every single one of those displaced people to Utah where there's plenty of room
But the Fifth Amendment requires due process before depriving a citizen of life, and the Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment.
Except Utah would suddenly get a hell of a lot more classy.
Doubtful. Utah is pretty set in its ways.
-
Remember that episode of Invader Zim with the really, really, really slow explosion? This ocean rise is like that. Only three orders of magnitude slower.
It's not something you should be expending precious neurons worrying about.
-
Remember that episode of Invader Zim with the really, really, really slow explosion? This ocean rise is like that. Only three orders of magnitude slower.
It's not something you should be expending precious neurons worrying about.
Excuse me for giving a shit about future generations. Also, I don't recall that explosion eventually engulfing the entire planet.
-
Why do you hate survival of the fittest so much? It's like you want to defeat evolution.
-
Excuse me for giving a shit about future generations.
If future generations get displaced by water rising at (checks Google) 1.12 * 10 ^ -9 m/s, well. I think they deserve to go extinct or whatever.
And that's based on your idiot scenario, of 3 meters in 85 years, which even you admit is exaggerated by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
Look, in the next 85 years, human civilization might be threatened by a lot of things. Maybe a super volcano. Maybe an asteroid. Who knows. But global warming? That's going to be the least of their problems.
-
If future generations get displaced by water rising at (checks Google) 1.12 * 10 ^ -9 m/s, well. I think they deserve to go extinct or whatever.
There's a lot of other shit going wrong with the world as a result of climate change besides rising sea levels. Temperature increases, ocean acidification, wildfire risk increase, destabilized weather patterns, coral bleaching, melting ice sheets... Even barring the eventual flooding of a significant portion of land worldwide, future generations have plenty of shit to worry about, and that's just what we know of.
-
Why do you hate survival of the fittest so much? It's like you want to defeat evolution.
I don't want to defeat evolution. I want to make sure it's allowed to continue. Preferably with something other than cockroaches, than you very much.
-
Which of those things, in the next 85 years, are so difficult to cope with that they will threaten civilization?
I'm just asking you to back-up your assertion. You said civilization is threatened. By what?
-
Wildfire risk, ocean acidification, destabilized weather, and coral bleaching could, potentially, all pose serious risks to civilization in the next 85 years. Hell, how many "thousand-year-storms" have already had huge death tolls just in our country in the past decade or so? How many people died from the heat wave in India? How many have died from the fires in Indonesia? How many people rely on the ocean for food/livelihoods?
-
Wildfire risk,
So civilization will survive on Malta, which has no trees.
ocean acidification,
So we eat less seafood and more beef. Beef's better anyway.
destabilized weather,
So fucking what? We already know how to handle weather.
and coral bleaching could,
Mmm, beef. It's what's for dinner.
potentially, all pose serious risks to civilization in the next 85 years.
I don't see how.
Hell, how many "thousand-year-storms" have already had huge death tolls just in our country in the past decade or so?
None that have come even remotely close to ending civilization, even within the small areas affected by those storms.
How many people died from the heat wave in India?
I don't know. Has civilization ceased in India?
How many have died from the fires in Indonesia?
I don't know. Has civilization ceased in Indonesia? If so, it's remarkable that somehow those fire crews have managed to form-up and fight fires given their country's Mad Max-like anarchism.
How many people rely on the ocean for food/livelihoods?
Even if 90% of people relied on the ocean for their food and livelihood, how would that going away threaten civilization?
Do you even recognize how crazy your insane exaggeration sounds?
-
So civilization will survive on Malta, which has no trees.
The land mass of Malta couldn't even hold a fifth of the human race if we all clumped together like the crowd in Times Square at New Year's, and we damn sure couldn't survive that way.
So we eat less seafood and more beef. Beef's better anyway.
Because there's going to be so much farmland on Malta once we turn it into a giant clusterfuck of people.So fucking what? We already know how to handle weather.
No we don't. Lol.
EDIT: To clarify, most people don't even know what to fucking do if it rains. People die all the time just from traffic accidents caused by slippery roads. People freeze to death in blizzards, die of heat stroke on warm days, stand by windows and stay on upper floors during tornadoes, die from all sorts of shit during hurricanes, and drown in floods.Mmm, beef. It's what's for dinner.
See aboveNone that have come even remotely close to ending civilization, even within the small areas affected by those storms.
I don't know. Has civilization ceased in India?
I don't know. Has civilization ceased in Indonesia? If so, it's remarkable that somehow those fire crews have managed to form-up and fight fires given their country's Mad Max-like anarchism.
If these things keep happening, and keep happening more often, and keep getting worse each time they happen, eventually civilization will cease to be, because we will eventually not have enough people to keep civilization afloat.Even if 90% of people relied on the ocean for their food and livelihood, how would that going away threaten civilization?
90% of people will suddenly have to find alternate means of living.
-
The land mass of Malta couldn't even hold a fifth of the human race if we all clumped together like the crowd in Times Square at New Year's, and we damn sure couldn't survive that way.
Right; but you only need a few thousand people for civilization. So no problem.
If these things keep happening, and keep happening more often, and keep getting worse each time they happen, eventually civilization will cease to be, because we will eventually not have enough people to keep civilization afloat.
Have you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
In particular, the bit about the Total Perspective Vortex? I think you need to spend a few hours in it. Because you have absolutely no sense of perspective.
-
Right; but you only need a few thousand people for civilization. So no problem.
For a civilization, sure. I'm not talking about a civilization. I'm talking about modern civilization.
Have you ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
In particular, the bit about the Total Perspective Vortex? I think you need to spend a few hours in it. Because you have absolutely no sense of perspective.
I know how incredibly insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe. That doesn't mean I want us to all die.
-
I know how incredibly insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe. That doesn't mean I want us to all die.
I'm trying to determine how ANY of the things you mention mean "we all die", though. That's what I'm not getting.
Like I said, they seem like minor inconveniences at most.
-
Like I said, they seem like minor inconveniences at most.
The death of our oceans and catastrophic storms occurring all the fucking time seem like minor inconveniences?
-
The death of our oceans and catastrophic storms occurring all the fucking time seem like minor inconveniences?
Frankly yes. The 1918 flu epidemic probably killed more people, percentage-wise, than those events will. Assuming they even occur.
-
The 1918 flu pandemic was one year, then it stopped. This isn't going to just be one shitty year and then we go back to normal and are able to pick up the pieces.
-
Indeed. In fact, you've failed to convince me there's anything to worry about here at all.
So far we have a rise in ocean levels that could be easily outrun by a frozen slug, then a bunch of hypothetical bullshit half of which isn't that big a deal anyway. ("Oh no! There's more... WEATHER COMING!")
-
Last I checked, California is still undergoing its worst drought in history, the northeastern portion of the US practically shut down for a good portion of this past winter, India was ravaged by a freak heat wave, Indonesia has had a slew of horrible fires, and you still say it's "hypothetical bullshit"?
-
Yes, weather happens. Good job.
None of those things are civilization-ending. They're just WEATHER. That's what weather is.
Unless you can PROVE, 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, that:
-
Events such as those would not occur if we had not emitted CO2 in the last 30 years and
-
Government regulation can stop events like that from occurring in the future
then I'm still going to oppose any government regulation that uses global warming as its cause celebre.
EDIT: oh and 3) the government regulation will cause less damage than the weather events it's designed to forestall
-
-
Unless you can PROVE, 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, that:
That's not how science works. That's not even how governments work. That's barely even how mathematics works. I think, if anything, you're the one who needs to spend some time in the Total Perspective Vortex.
Events such as those would not occur if we had not emitted CO2 in the last 30 years
They would've been less likely.Government regulation can stop events like that from occurring in the future
They can, by reducing or removing the sources of events like that.the government regulation will cause less damage than the weather events it's designed to forestall
Excuse me if I don't give half a shit about preventing fat, rich bastards from raping another billion dollars out of the environment, if it means saving the other seven billion people in the world.
-
Right, but you see the point, do you not?
This whole conversation I've been trying to gauge if you honestly think a ocean rise of 3 meters over 85 years will lead to the end of civilization (which is such a ridiculous concept my brain can barely contain it), or whether you're just A+ number one troll.
I think you truly believe it.
-
This whole conversation I've been trying to gauge if you honestly think a ocean rise of 3 meters over 85 years will lead to the end of civilization
An ocean rise of 3 meters over 85 years would have serious consequences for civilization, and the sea levels are rising at an exponential rate which does not look to be stopping any time soon, so it will just keep getting worse, just like every other problem global warming causes. You might not have to deal with it anymore on account of probably dying of old age by then, but that doesn't mean you're right to fuck over everyone else.
-
An ocean rise of 3 meters over 85 years would have serious consequences for civilization,
You have not adequately demonstrated this assertion.
and the sea levels are rising at an exponential rate which does not look to be stopping any time soon,
Oh well this little factoid is brand new.
You might not have to deal with it anymore on account of probably dying of old age by then, but that doesn't mean you're right to fuck over everyone else.
You haven't convinced me that I am fucking them over.
Look, they have to deal with a tiny ocean rise and maybe a couple more storms a year. Fine.
I had to deal with air polluted with leaded gasoline that likely reduced my IQ.
We all have to deal with our parents' bullshit.
-
I don't want to defeat evolution. I want to make sure it's allowed to continue. Preferably with something other than cockroaches, than you very much.
What you just said amounts to "I support the police and fully uphold the law. Preferably as long as it's not applied to me when I'm speeding."
-
In barely related news, I recently went to Turkey for a vacation (my sister lives there, free lodging yay). I am your standard white guy with a beard, no criminal history and all the requisite paperwork. The American authorities flagged me as a possible threat (or something) and put me through the back room "why are you going there, did you know Turkey is pretty close to Iraq/Israel/etc, do you sympathize with terrorists, etc".
My guess, based on that experience, they were being watched due to them having Arab-sounding names. Nevermind that Turkey is a legitimate travel destination for Europeans, maybe they're going to help the terrorists! They're probably Muslims! Get em, boys!
-
You have not adequately demonstrated this assertion.
I know I was joking earlier about how moving people to Utah would be a terrible idea, but it's still a terrible idea and is a serious consequence for civilization.Oh well this little factoid is brand new.
No, it isn't.
We all have to deal with our parents' bullshit.
That doesn't mean we should fuck over our children on purpose, and it definitely doesn't mean we should fuck over our children worse than our parents fucked us over.
-
@Fox said:
I don't want to defeat evolution. I want to make sure it's allowed to continue. Preferably with something other than cockroaches, than you very much.
What you just said amounts to "I support the police and fully uphold the law. Preferably as long as it's not applied to me when I'm speeding."
What you just said amounts to "In nature, animals eat their children, kill rivals' babies, eat shit, and murder each other all the time, so we humans should do all that stuff, too."
-
Actually that's more like what Hitler said. He was a big advocate of survival of the fittest.
-
You literally just Godwin's Law'd your own argument.
Thanks for helping argue my point, I guess?
-
Of life that didn't have air conditioners
The heat wont kill us directly, there is a lot of interesting things that can happen like ocean acidification, starvation because crops, deoxygenation of the atmosphere, etc.
You're most likely to be eaten by a cat anyway
-
The heat wont kill us directly
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151008142416.htmNot necessarily.
Also, heat strokes.
-
the sea levels are rising at an exponential rate which does not look to be stopping any time soon
I'd be willing to believe it's rising at an exponential rate if the exponent is complex, but with a positive real value? No.
Filed under: Sea level = a + (b * (exp(-sqrt(-1) * t) - exp(sqrt(-i)* t)))
-
I'd be willing to believe it's rising at an exponential rate if the exponent is complex, but with a positive real value? No.
scrolls up
-
I was helping you argue your point. That's why I Godwin's Law'd it.
-
This rate may be increasing.
steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year
Doesn't look "steady" to me.
0.12 inches per year
An increase from 0.1 to 0.12 does not appear to me to provide any evidence for an exponential increase.
My rather pedantic point, however, was that an exponential (with a positive real exponent) increase is unbounded. The sea level increase cannot possibly be exponential, as it is obviously bounded by, if nothing else, all water on Earth being a liquid part of the oceans. (A complex exponential, OTOH, might represent a periodic function, some sort of sinusoid, which is entirely plausible given Earth's history of warm and cold cycles.) It seems likely that well before that point, the rise would be limited by the cooling part of Earth's natural warm/cold cycle that, according to the evidence, has periodically changed Earth's climate since long before humankind first breathed CO2 into the atmosphere (much less produced it on an industrial scale), and will almost certainly continue to do so whether or not humanity continues to breathe.
Edit: I accidentally a word.
-
If it's 0 for a few thousand years, and then for a while it's 0.04 to 0.1, then a shorter while later it's 1.2, that sure seems like an exponential function to me.
And yes, it's obviously bounded, but until such time as the world's ice sheets melt entirely and either thermal expansion (and thus global warming itself) levels off or the oceans hit the boiling point of saltwater, there doesn't seem to be anything that will slow the acceleration of that rate of change.
-
The heat wont kill us directly, there is a lot of interesting things that can happen like ocean acidification, starvation because crops, deoxygenation of the atmosphere, etc.
Giant Space Goat eats Miami, etc.
Look, yes. I can come up with doomsday scenarios too. You're missing the point just as much as bra-fox is.
WHAT IS THE LINK BETWEEN RISING TEMPERATURES AND CROP FAILURE?
Common sense would say the staple crop here in North America, maize, would actually LOVE higher temperatures. Common sense would dictate our crop yields would go up from global warming, not down.
So I don't get the link. You say "crop failures cause starvation" as if it's just a given, but it's not-- again, things don't just magically happen without cause. So what's the cause? What's the link between global warming and crop failures?
It's a super-simple question, and the fact that bra-fox can't answer it says a lot about the people who just blindly believe we need 4763,2387,34246 new laws to combat global warming.
JUST EXPLAIN TO ME IN PLAIN ENGLISH WHAT THE THREAT HERE IS. WHY SHOULD I FEEL THREATENED BY THIS.
-
You say "crop failures cause starvation" as if it's just a given
I'd say the link between crop failures and starvation is pretty obvious. The link between climate change and crop failures, on the other hand, is — let's be generous and just say — less obvious.
-
The link between climate change and crop failures, on the other hand, is — let's be generous and just say — less obvious.
That's what I'm asking.
Everything I know about our staple crops tells me corn would grow BETTER with GREATER YIELDS after some warming. Plus potentially longer growing season.
