Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
Oh shit, he's played Far Cry 3. Well my mind's made-up!!!
-
Fortunately there are negative feedbacks too. For example, elevated carbonic acid levels cause greater levels of atmospheric weathering of rocks.
Rocks eroding faster negatively affects the amount of atmospheric CO2?
-
The CO2 converts to carbonic acid, and that dissolves the rocks and you get carbonates (eventually) deposited in the oceans. That locks the carbon away in oceanic sediments (and eventially rocks) for a long time.
-
I know how feedback loops work. I have a degree in Biology. Feedback loops are practically day one material. I know that there are negative feedback loops, too, but, as you can see from what the graph actually is, they take longer than positive feedback loops.
-
-
How the heck would the space program help?
So we can just say "peace out" and live amongst the stars as the world burns. Or floods. Or both. I guess we could also just live like the world's become Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and just have some kickass personal AC units and a shitton of boats.
-
I'm just saying it's more consistent theory than that governments spending trillions of bucks really has any significant effect on global warming.
I dunno, it's gibberish as typed.
The last bit, after "governments spending trillions of dollars" makes sense, but the first half of the sentence eludes me entirely.
-
THAT'S the plan? Sheesh.
I like how you skipped all my legit questions and answered the dumb one.
-
I like how you skipped all my legit questions and answered the dumb one.
Did you expect anything else from a bra cox?
-
Aren't we running out of oil in what was it, 50 years?
What? That's a hell of a lot of [citation needed] right there, because last I heard, we had plenty of oil left and by the time we burned through it all, Antarctica would melt.
-
we had plenty of oil left and by the time we burned through it all, Antarctica would melt.
Was that before Volkswagen got uncovered?
-
I was at least hoping for more Far Cry meme images.
-
Why is time limited? What's the countdown at? What happens when the "deadline" passes?
It's not so much that time is limited to a specific deadline. Our models are not accurate enough for that. We do know that it is going to keep getting worse, and will probably reach catastrophic levels hundreds or thousands of years before the environment's negative feedback loops are able to stop/reverse it.
Even if they did, essentially uncontrollable natural events, like a bad forest fire season or a volcanic eruption can output far more than human civilization in a small fraction of the time-- the forest fires in Indonesia this season have put more CO2 in the atmosphere than all human activity in the US. For example. And Indonesia isn't even a very big country.
The fires will die out eventually. But according to a recent scientific paper, fire seasons are likely to become longer and more intense in the future. If the 2015 fire season indicates a new pattern, then we could be in real trouble.
Oh, hey, look, another positive feedback loop.
-
It's not so much that time is limited to a specific deadline.
Ok; so how do you prioritize it?
We do know that it is going to keep getting worse, and will probably reach catastrophic levels hundreds or thousands of years before the environment's negative feedback loops are able to stop/reverse it.
Catastrophic, how?
Look, I live in Seattle, WA, USA. I live for 80 years starting... ... ... now. Explain to me exactly, exactly, what cataclysm will occur due to global warming in my lifetime.
I mean, if I were to rank the risks to an average Seattleite, global warming wouldn't even make the top 10. Earthquake, in that 80 years, at least one destructive earthquake will almost certainly occur, Mt. Rainier blowing its top is extremely likely and the mohars would wipe out most of King County if it occurred (fortunately, we have a lot of monitoring of it), tsunami in the Puget Sound is quite possible, although fortunately the Sound shields us pretty reliably from Pacific Ocean tsunami and most of Seattle is on high hills... freight train derailing with some nasty chemical in it, maybe. Hell, even war-- lots of Navy ships and facilities around here to make it a valid target.
I just wanna know where global warming needs to be in the list.
-
What? That's a hell of a lot of [citation needed] right there, because last I heard, we had plenty of oil left and by the time we burned through it all, Antarctica would melt.
It's hard (inb4 ) for us to keep all of the doom-and-gloom predictions straight, especially when they .
-
That's a hell of a lot of
FTFY
But if we are talking seriously (are we ever?), energy resources are finite, even if there's still plenty more than it was estimated some 10 - 20 years prior1.
So sooner or later we'll have to switch from oil and coal to something else (I see future in nuclear power, but I feel you are not the type to agree with that).1Notice how that is sort of similar to global warming in regards to scare tactics used: OMG, the world is ending, if we continue to burn oil at the same rate, we'll run out in 40 years. Yet 20 years passed and now it seems like there's more left than it was then.
-
Ok; so how do you prioritize it?
The future of civilization > short-term profits for oil barons
That's how.
Catastrophic, how?
Look, I live in Seattle, WA, USA. I live for 80 years starting... ... ... now. Explain to me exactly, exactly, what cataclysm will occur due to global warming in my lifetime.
Seattle was actually built pretty decently in terms of planning for future sea level rises. Most of Seattle is well above the 3m rise estimated to occur by the year 2100. But you're looking at this as a "not my problem" situation. In short,http://i.imgur.com/40Idny0.png?1
Seattle will weather the next century relatively well, barring other catastrophes besides sea level rise.
Other cities will not.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/overpeck_sea_level_rise.jpg
-
We already knew that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an asshole.
-
We already knew that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an asshole.
I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an asshole. I just think the ones who disagree with me at the expense of other people are assholes.
-
The future of civilization > short-term profits for oil barons
That's how.
EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION IS THREATENED.
This is what I am asking.
Seattle was actually built pretty decently in terms of planning for future sea level rises.
Seattle and planning in the same sentence? Hahahahahhahahahahahahhaha. HAHAHAHA. This is the city with three conflicting street grids, because the streets were initially laid-out by three different assholes, each one of which picked a different angle. This is the city that laid-out an entire monorail-based mass transit system in the 1960s, then failed to build any of it, then when they did build it decided to use an off-the-shelf light rail system at more cost than the originally planned monorail-based system. This is the city with a major freeway running over a trestle identical to the one that collapsed in San Francisco in 1989, because it hasn't been able to until recently find its ass with both hands and get funding to tear the death-trap down.
Heck. The tunnel to replace that trestle was delayed something like 3 months because some dude forgot to remove a steel pipe from a test drilling and the tunneling machine got damaged from running into it.
Nothing in Seattle has ever been "planned".
Most of Seattle is well above the 3m rise estimated to occur by the year 2100.
Ok; say the sea level rises 3 meters by the year 2100.
HOW DOES THAT CAUSE A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION? To be, it seems like a minor inconvenience at most. Somehow we manage to evacuate people when we build dams and flood areas, and that happens a shitload faster than 85 years.
-
I just think the ones who disagree with me at the expense of other people are assholes.
Given that the bolded part is one of the things people disagree with, it really amounts to the same thing.
-
How the heck would the space program help?
Those who leave don't have to worry about Earthly pollution levels. Maybe we could convince China to put all their factories on big rockets, etc.
Some of these ideas may be more hypothetical than others.
-
Why is time limited?
Because in the most alarmist scenarios, large portions of low-lying cities will be under up to a few feet of water in a few hundred years.
-
Nothing in Seattle has ever been "planned".
Okay, then they accidentally built a city that would be able to survive some serious sea level rise without being severely flooded.
HOW DOES THAT CAUSE A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION? To be, it seems like a minor inconvenience at most. Somehow we manage to evacuate people when we build dams and flood areas, and that happens a shitload faster than 85 years.
About a hundred million people around the world will be displaced in that time frame. How many refugees are we already flipping out about having to deal with from the Syrian shit going on?
-
large portions of low-lying cities will be under up to a few feet of water in a
fewhundred years.FTFY
Or, perhaps,
large portions of low-lying cities will be under up to a few
feetdozen meters of water in a few hundred years.
FTFYI'm not sure which you meant.
-
@obeselymorbid said:
Aren't we running out of oil in what was it, 50 years?
What? That's a hell of a lot of [citation needed] right there, because last I heard, we had plenty of oil left and by the time we burned through it all, Antarctica would melt.
Yes, that's the point. Luddites have been predicting "peak oil" for decades. You can't read a mailing list talking about alternative housing (for a single example) without people piously intoning about peak oil. Well, you couldn't ten years ago. These people were just about ready to cut down trees carve 'em into wheels to be hauled by the oxen they were planning to buy WHEN ALL THE GAS PUMPS GO DRY MAN.
-
there are negative feedback loops, too
Of course there are. And that's why your slippery slope argument, which made a big deal out of it being a positive feedback loop, was disingenuous.
-
Seattle was actually built pretty decently in terms of planning for future sea level rises. Most of Seattle is well above the 3m rise estimated to occur by the year 2100. But you're looking at this as a "not my problem" situation. In short,
From your link:
" If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR."That's 1/3 of a meter, not 3 meters, according to the abstract.
-
@Fox said:
there are negative feedback loops, too
Of course there are. And that's why your slippery slope argument which made a big deal out of it being a positive feedback loop was disingenuous.
*scrolls up*
@Fox said:will probably reach catastrophic levels hundreds or thousands of years before the environment's negative feedback loops are able to stop/reverse it.
-
@FrostCat said:
large portions of low-lying cities will be under up to a few feet of water in a
fewhundred years.FTFY
Or, perhaps,
large portions of low-lying cities will be under up to a few
feetdozen meters of water in a few hundred years.
FTFYI'm not sure which you meant.
I don't believe either of those alarmist positions, and neither should you.
-
You posted that after I called you out.
-
Our models are not accurate enough for that.
We do knowThose innacurate models predict that it is going to keep getting worse, and will probably reach catastrophic levels hundreds or thousands of years before the environment's negative feedback loops are able to stop/reverse it.
-
The interesting part of that is that the term 'peak oil', and the curve that it appears on, is a perfectly valid one - for assessing the output of a single given oil field. Both the Hubbert curve (which can be applied to many types of resources, including renewable ones, such as fisheries and some kinds of soil fertility analyses - it just happened to come up first in oil, because it was derived from a Shell Oil research project) and the Hubbert peak say nothing about the use of any resource globally, at least not directly.
-
Oh, I misread that as cm. Well, 1/3 of a meter wouldn't be too bad by 2100. But there's a lot of other things that are going wrong as a result of climate change. Rising temperatures, ocean acidification, increased fire risks, destabilized weather patterns, etc.
-
No, the models are based on the prediction that it will get worse if we keep going as we are right now. Not the other way around.
-
No, the models are based on the prediction that it will get worse if we keep going as we are right now. Not the other way around.
More irony: you've just admitted that the models are begging the question.
-
-
I dunno, it's gibberish as typed.
The last bit, after "governments spending trillions of dollars" makes sense, but the first half of the sentence eludes me entirely.
Complex sentence, broken up to easily digestible parts, specially for our favorite rat:
-
@Fox said:
No, the models are based on the prediction that it will get worse if we keep going as we are right now. Not the other way around.
More irony: you've just admitted that the models are begging the question.
TDEMSYR
The prediction is that, if we continue to produce CO2 at the current rate, it will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere as it has. Then, we model what will happen as a result of that accumulation. We're not modeling the accumulation itself, so how is that begging the question?
-
I think you actually made the sentence harder to understand.
-
I think you actually made the sentence harder to understand.
The first thing you've said that I agree with.
-
*scrolls up*
will probably reach catastrophic levels hundreds or thousands of years before the environment's negative feedback loops are able to stop/reverse it.
*scrolls up further*
post #397
@anotherusername said:That's a positive feedback loop. Let me show you how positive feedback loops work
-
The prediction is that, if we continue to produce CO2 at the current rate, it will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere as it has.
How do we know this? Did the prediction come from the model?
Then, we model what will happen as a result of that accumulation. We're not modeling the accumulation itself, so how is that begging the question?
See above.
-
But there's a lot of other things that are going wrong as a result of climate change. Rising temperatures, ocean acidification, increased fire risks, destabilized weather patterns, etc.
You're gonna feel pretty stupid if we get a decade or two of reduced solar output.
-
For one thing, I've been acknowledging the existence of environmental negative feedback loops for weeks.
For another, the fact that you "called me out on it before I posted that" doesn't mean you actually disproved anything about what I was saying.
-
I don't feel the pressing need to disprove wild speculation.
-
How do we know this? Did the prediction come from the model?
No, the prediction comes from observations and measurements taken over the past hundred years, and the expectation that businesses dealing with oil will continue to do so until such time as they either run out of oil to deal with (see Antarctica Will Melt By Then) or are forced to stop dealing with oil by outside forces.
-
What "wild speculation"?
http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/CO2 550my Extinction Chart from Ward.jpg
This graph would not exist if environmental negative feedback loops were effective at rapidly decreasing or counterbalancing CO2 increases.
-
this is the first time in all of history that humans have caused a spike in CO2 emissions
<discourse doesn't like me doing nothing other than repeating myself, so here's some new text>
-
No, the prediction comes from observations and measurements taken over the past hundred years
So it's not begging the question, but instead extrapolating.
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?
and the expectation that businesses dealing with oil will continue to do so until such time as they either run out of oil to deal with (see Antarctica Will Melt By Then) or are forced to stop dealing with oil by outside forces.
Not relevant. See original quote:
The prediction is that, if we continue to produce CO2 at the current rate, it will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere as it has.