Nevermind the bollocks, here's another religion topic
-
If this has been in balance for the last 150,000 years
It wasn't in balance prior to the industrial age either. Atmospheric CO2 was actually decreasing, and has been for millions of years.
Here is a plot of CO2 levels for 600 millions years using geologic evidence and shows the current level of 385 ppm is the lowest in the entire record and only equaled by a period between 315 and 270 million years ago.
In fact, there are indications that, prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 may have been nearing the critical 180 ppm point. Below 180 ppm, plants can no longer sustain effective photosynthesis and will die. If all the plants die off, then will the food chain last long enough for everyone to asphyxiate? Or will we all choke on the air with full stomachs?
Based on geological time-scale data, I'm pretty sure that the amount of CO2 we're putting in the air is not a problem. Current climate trends may make things a bit uncomfortable, but we'll likely survive. And even if we don't, life on Earth will.
-
we'll likely survive
As a species? Yes. But I'd rather skip the Mad Max scenarios along the way TYVM!
-
The thing is that we're 13 billion tons CO2/year over budget now.
There's a budget?
-
As a species? Yes.
That was kind of my point.
But I'd rather skip the Mad Max scenarios along the way TYVM!
Like any of us even have a hope of living long enough to enjoy those scenarios. Our great grandchildren might, but we don't.
-
When we were doing this with Fox, he skipped directly from "1 cm rise in sea levels over a century" directly to "everybody will have to live in a freezer boat to survive!" without ever bothering to link the one idea to the other.
The "Mad Max" scenario seems to be the same damned thing all over again.
What, specifically, will bring about a Mad Max future? That's what I wanna know.
And the funny thing is: I'm against pollution, and I'm against pumping tons of carbon in the air, and I drive a hybrid and ride the bus and all that stuff.
But these apocalyptic scenarios are fucking ridiculous.
-
Still nope.
You've basically said putting faith in science is not science, and I agree. They have a religion at that point.
Which is what I was saying.
Show me one valid theory Scientology produced
You're missing the point.
I'm not saying science is a religion. I'm saying people have made science into their religion. They have some weird perception of science that becomes a religion for them.
There is no dogma, there are no commandments,
No, the dogma is the politicalization of science, which is external to science.
Okay, fine, here's one, from this year
Yeah, individual schools. You implied it was systematic.
If that's true of an English utterance, certainly drawing an Islamic phrase in a script the vast majority can't even read is purely calligraphic in nature and has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion?
You're right, we should remove under God from the pledge, and from money.
Wow.... false dilemmas are easy....
-
What, specifically, will bring about a Mad Max future? That's what I wanna know.
Deforestation?
But these apocalyptic scenarios are fucking ridiculous.
Everyone makes fun of the story of Noah's Ark because there's not that much water on Earth, but the global warming political activists don't bat an eye at Waterworld.
-
Everyone makes fun of the story of Noah's Ark because there's not that much water on Earth,
I liked that Bruce Almighty sequel with Steve Carell. Actually thought it was a better movie, because Carell's character was actually likable.
but the global warming political activists don't bat an eye at Waterworld.
Waterworld is awesome. Best movie.
-
I liked that Bruce Almighty sequel with Steve Carell. Actually thought it was a better movie, because Carell's character was actually likable.
There was a certain point in my childhood when Jim Carrey seemed funny.
I'm not sure what drugs I was taking.
-
Jim Carrey can be funny, but the problem is he's often assigned to play characters who are TOTAL DICKS and when the character is "redeemed" it doesn't really work because they were just SUCH TOTAL DICKS before.
Bruce Almighty has that problem, but so does Liar, Liar and The Mask. Especially The Mask. Goddamned. What a fucking dick.
Jim Carrey would be best playing a part where he's a TOTAL DICK throughout the entire movie and they don't try to make him "learn his lesson" at the end. Like Adam Sandler movies, where he pretty much has the same level of dick at the end than he had at the beginning. (Except The Wedding Singer, where he was only a bit of a dick in the middle.)
EDIT: I just remembered The Majestic. That movie worked with Jim Carrey, at least I thought it worked pretty well. Probably would have been better with someone else, I guess.
-
Jim Carrey would be best playing a part where he's a TOTAL DICK throughout the entire movie and they don't try to make him "learn his lesson" at the end.
You mean... when he played the Riddler?
-
You mean... when he played the Riddler?
There was nothing about that movie that was good. But it's kind of a special case.
-
There was nothing about that movie that was good
It was something about action flicks of the era.
Hamming was normal.
I'm still not sure how they survived.
-
I just remembered The Majestic. That movie worked with Jim Carrey, at least I thought it worked pretty well. Probably would have been better with someone else, I guess.
It was so strong on its own that it survived Jim.
Even Tom Cruise could have played that part.
Any other actor, had they been younger would have done better.
Tom Hanks... so on...
-
but the global warming political activists don't bat an eye at Waterworld.
They're too busy facepalming over The Day After Tomorrow, which has a far larger WTFs-per-frame factor.
-
The Day After Tomorrow
And it's sequel. 2012.
All three find their basis in global warming doomsday scenarios.
-
-
@dkf said:
The Day After Tomorrow
And it's sequel. 2012.
All three find their basis in global warming doomsday scenarios.
How was 2012 a sequel to The Day After Tomorrow? And how was 2012 at all tied to global warming?
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
If this has been in balance for the last 150,000 years
It wasn't in balance prior to the industrial age either. Atmospheric CO2 was actually decreasing, and has been for millions of years.
In fact, there are indications that, prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 may have been nearing the critical 180 ppm point. Below 180 ppm, plants can no longer sustain effective photosynthesis and will die. If all the plants die off, then will the food chain last long enough for everyone to asphyxiate? Or will we all choke on the air with full stomachs?
Over a very long time scale, you're right, there has been surplus sequestration. That's a good thing; otherwise Earth would be more like Venus. But assuming there isn't a tip into an ice age (preconditions of which we still don't really know) then 180 ppm should be a limit in a positive feedback system. (Too low, plants die off, absorption is reduced.)
In fact, as conditions were pre-industry, there were surpluses both in ocean absorption and plant absorption, generally speaking. Human emission has easily exceeded the existing sequestration capability.
Based on geological time-scale data, I'm pretty sure that the amount of CO2 we're putting in the air is not a problem. Current climate trends may make things a bit uncomfortable, but we'll likely survive. And even if we don't, life on Earth will.
As far as temperature goes, that graph is very poor. This is a better representation:
Note that this scale is logarithmic by age, so the rightmost 200 is 200,000 years ago. Man came of age roughly during the blue line area of the graph, and our recorded history is all within the steady-state trailing out from 11-12 thousand years ago.
Note that it also projects temperatures on the right-hand vertical, for 2050 and 2100, and that 2100 most likely projection is warmer than the planet has been since, oh, 10 million years ago. Everything alive now is adapted to that lower range of temperatures. (The original graph is here.)
There's some people who say, this is no big deal; after all the world has been warmer in the past. But our history in not-managing-our-problems has worked out
so wellabsolutely abysmally in so many cases that I am distrustful of those who say nothing needs done; especially when those people are paid to say that.If you want a comparative history, consider that of pollution. There's a lot of snide commentary these days about Beijing, but people have forgotten that Los Angeles was that bad back in the 50s to 70s. As much as it's improved, the smog is still estimated to kill 24,000 people/year in that area. (Overcoming the worst of the smog is a fundamental reason California is a leader in pollution regulation.)
Compare LA Smog: the battle against air pollution with the current global warming arguments and see if you can identify any similarities; there again you'll see the "deniers" and the scientists who were proved right.
(As Randall Monroe wrote, "Science. It works bitches." Those who want to dismiss global warming or science as "mere religion" are not on the side of history.)
There have been catastrophes in the past of the world; I (at least) really would prefer that humanity not become another. (As in, "Then came the next catastrophe, humans.")
-
@LaoC said:
If that's true of an English utterance, certainly drawing an Islamic phrase in a script the vast majority can't even read is purely calligraphic in nature and has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion?
You're right, we should remove under God from the pledge, and from money.
Wow.... false dilemmas are easy....
It's not like I would mind, but I said quite the opposite: as long as that's the prevailing stance to much more pervasive and obvious references to the Christian God in schools, what's the big deal with a pretty obscure one to Allah?
If you say you would never ask a Muslim to write "Jehova" or something, you've probably forgotten that most are being asked to not only write the name but pledge allegiance to it every day. It just isn't something from the past.
-
Schools are always and forever sneaking through Christian teachings, texts, assignments.
I need you to show examples.
Okay, fine, here's one, from this year:Yeah, individual schools. You implied it was systematic.
Yeah, yeah, defense lawyer tactic: "While it's true my client had a gun; and the gun was fired; and the bullet in the deceased matched the gun; and the deceased was in the bungalow; and ten people saw my client go into the bungalow; and then heard a shot; and sure my client then left the bungalow; and afterward no one was in the bungalow with the body of the deceased.
"But no one actually saw my client pull the trigger, so there's no proof my client killed the deceased."
There are a dozen or so religious freedom lawsuits a year involving schools. Lawsuits are expensive to fight; and people are not inclined to rock the boat even if wronged. Probably at a guess there are 1,000 violations at least for every one of these lawsuits that are filed. I say the iceberg is 10% exposed, 90% hidden; you say there's not a thing below the surface because you can't see it.
I'm not inclined to spend time listing a dozen or two dozen or a hundred religious freedom suits relating to schools, only to have you tell me that doesn't prove problems are widespread. Go ahead and believe there's nothing below the surface, full steam ahead.
-
There's some people who say, this is no big deal; after all the world has been warmer in the past. But our history in not-managing-our-problems has worked out so wellabsolutely abysmally in so many cases that I am distrustful of those who say nothing needs done; especially when those people are paid to say that.
But, where your argument fails, is whether we can do anything about it.
Whether crippling the coal industry will work.
Whether we can continue to develop green energy with a crippled economy.All of which, the answer is no.
We are not without the possibility of being subjected to those previous highs for reasons other than CO2. And assuming the entire world will terraform to our will because we stopped emitting greenhouse gases is absurd.
One puff from yellowstone, ends all your carbon credits.
-
If you say you would never ask a Muslim to write "Jehova" or something, you've probably forgotten that most are being asked to not only write the name but pledge allegiance to it every day. It just isn't something from the past.
I support the elimination of both.
It's a much more sane and defensible position.
-
only to have you tell me that doesn't prove problems are widespread.
Systematic does not equal systemic.
Our laws prevent someone from being forced to write "Allah is God", and do all those things you've complained about.
The only recourse is lawsuits.
This is essentially saying, "But Billy does it too.... " as an argument.
I know you think this is a plank/spec in the eye situation, but I've already indicated that I do not support either religion in this case.
-
How was 2012 a sequel to The Day After Tomorrow?
I thought they both where a sequel to Towering Inferno?
-
I support the elimination of both.
It's a much more sane and defensible position.
I agree, that's the best option. We should just rewrite
@xaade said:Just because it's been done in the past, does not give schools the right to force Christian children to write down "Allah".
as
"Because it's still happening every day, schools have every right to do calligraphics with 'Allah' or whatever religious mumbo-jumbo. Would be nice if those parents were against all of it".
-
This post is deleted!
-
Over a very long time scale, you're right, there has been surplus sequestration. That's a good thing; otherwise Earth would be more like Venus. But assuming there isn't a tip into an ice age (preconditions of which we still don't really know) then 180 ppm should be a limit in a positive feedback system. (Too low, plants die off, absorption is reduced.)
Wow, you really don't understand what the 180ppm limit means, do you? Below 180ppm plants cannot survive. If we drop below 180ppm long enough, every land plant will die. That means death for every air breathing animal. The oceans would get by for a little while longer, but eventually, they would probably follow the same fate.
180ppm is not a limit in "positive feedback system". It's a lower limit in plant biology below which plants cannot survive.
In fact, as conditions were pre-industry, there were surpluses both in ocean absorption and plant absorption,
Long term, this is bad for the planet.
Human emission has easily exceeded the existing sequestration capability.
This is most likely good for the survival of plants and, as a result, all ecosystems on earth.
As far as temperature goes, that graph is very poor. This is a better representation:
I don't really give a
about the temperature part of the graph I provided, nor do I give a shit about your temperature graph. We were talking about CO2 levels. But since you brought it up: You mean CO2 levels and temperature don't really correlate? That seems to be an indication that there are other, more powerful factors at play. 
Given that I wasn't talking about temperature at all, I skipped the next 3 paragraphs of your post. I'm not even going to try to combat the projections for 2050 and 2100 because those are just darts thrown at the wall using someone's pet model.
And then you go on a rant about smog and pollution, which again has little to do with my comments. Nice try at diversion, but I'm not going for it.
-
But, where your argument fails, is whether we can do anything about it.Whether crippling the coal industry will work.Whether we can continue to develop green energy with a crippled economy.
All of which, the answer is no.
We are not without the possibility of being subjected to those previous highs for reasons other than CO2. And assuming the entire world will terraform to our will because we stopped emitting greenhouse gases is absurd.
One puff from yellowstone, ends all your carbon credits.
I wasn't arguing that. But since you bring it up, how do you know, "We can't do this." Haven't you ever heard your boss talk about opportunities? We would almost certainly be further along if it weren't for incumbent industries attaching all the anchors onto developing industries.
Most proponents of the can't-do-it argument would fire any of their employees who were so negative.
A lot of bad arguments are made in this regard. An example is the, "...solar cells are worthless because they don't work at night," argument. It's true they don't work at night, but they work fine in daytime; and every kWh produced by solar in the daytime is a pound of coal (or gas, etc.) that doesn't have to be burned in the daytime. In fact, if all daytime power was produced by solar instead of coal, we'd be well on our way to solving this problem.
As for the "puff from Yellowstone": ongoing volcanic activity produces around 200 million tons of carbon dioxide year. That's less than 1% of the emissions produced by humans. If the super volcano blew, well...who knows? But we can't do anything about that; it's a poor excuse to shrug our shoulders and say, "So then we shouldn't do anything about what we can or might change." That's like saying, "I'm never going to repair my house because an earthquake might knock it down next week."
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
Over a very long time scale, you're right, there has been surplus sequestration. That's a good thing; otherwise Earth would be more like Venus. But assuming there isn't a tip into an ice age (preconditions of which we still don't really know) then 180 ppm should be a limit in a positive feedback system. (Too low, plants die off, absorption is reduced.)
Wow, you really don't understand what the 180ppm limit means, do you? Below 180ppm plants cannot survive. If we drop below 180ppm long enough, every land plant will die. That means death for every air breathing animal. The oceans would get by for a little while longer, but eventually, they would probably follow the same fate.
180ppm is not a limit in "positive feedback system". It's a lower limit in plant biology below which plants cannot survive.
But we wouldn't reach that point, would we? This isn't a switch, where one day the plants are healthy/green/happy and the next they're all dead. There would be a progressive loss of plants as levels dropped near 180ppm. Progressive loss of plants means progressive loss in absorption, means the levels stop going down.
And then there's humanity: we can obviously quite easily hold the level above 180ppm; our problem is holding it down, not holding it up.
I don't really give a
about the temperature part of the graph I provided, nor do I give a shit about your temperature graph. We were talking about CO2 levels. But since you brought it up: You mean CO2 levels and temperature don't really correlate? That seems to be an indication that there are other, more powerful factors at play. Heat absorption correlates to CO2, by a quite simple equation. Temperature generally follows the amount of heat absorbed. We can see this quite clearly in the changing climate temperature averages. (The 15 year "pause" proponents are discredited by their previous argument that the 70 year increase in temperature before that didn't mean a thing.) What other factors are involved, we don't know, and there's no other planet to try this out on.
Which brings us back to the models and assumptions like: How does increasing temperature affect cloud cover? Will the permafrost thaw and dump more CO2? The majority of models suggest the outcome isn't good...of course we can put on our rose covered glasses, assume the most rosy outcome, and sit on our hands. That's worked out so well in all the other problems humanity has encountered.
-
What other factors are involved, we don't know
We know some of the other factors. For example, we know that the oceans give a huge amount of thermal inertia (because it'd be crazy to assume otherwise, and completely contrary to all experiments and common sense) so waiting until we've got to the highest (or lowest, were that relevant) temperature we want to be at before acting is a stupendously bad idea.
The coupling factors between different parts of the atmosphere is a huge bunch of unknowns. Particularly worrying is the thought that changes might make different mechanisms to the current ones dominant; that's where we get stuff coming to the fore that we can currently ignore in our models. Also, much of the coupling happens at scales where our models don't go (for computational tractability reasons) so there's a huge amount of uncertainty. And of course, these are fluid dynamics models, and so are non-linear and difficult-to-impossible to handle analytically.
Then there's the methane in permafrost and clathrates. If that starts entering the atmosphere in large quantities, the best thing we could do would be to capture it and burn it (or convert into some other fuel or plastic) as methane is a massively stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. But what level would trigger that? Could we deal with the consequences? Massive unknowns.
The scientific advocates of dealing with climate change are doing so because they believe that acting now is the cheapest option with least human suffering. Acting later will be much more costly (because the later costs will probably include some truly ugly wars). And sensible technological fixes to make things easier are a great idea. (The ultra-greens don't tend to like that thought, but fuck those idiotic fanatics.)
-
Heat absorption correlates to CO2, by a quite simple equation. blah, blah, blah …
Apparently you hopped on the
. Now it's all smashed to pieces, you bastard!Ok, so you claim that CO2 concentration directly correlates to temperature. So let's start with that. The currently accepted model for how CO2 works in the atmosphere is that it absorbs heat radiated from the earth's surface, holds it for a time, and later radiates it into space. As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the altitude at which heat escapes is increased, which is what causes the "warming" effect.[1]
But there's more to it. The atmosphere doesn't just get colder as you go up. In fact, somewhere between 10 and 20 km up (it varies depending on where you are) lies the tropopause, the transition between the troposphere and the stratosphere. The unique thing about this transition is that it is where the atmosphere stops cooling with height.[2] Not only that, but in the stratosphere, temperature increases with height.[3] Based on this, it has been hypothesized, and some models support the hypothesis, that the tropopause will impose a limit to the effects of CO2 caused warming, and may even impose a reversing effect to cause some limited cooling.[4]
So don't give me this bullshit about "it's a quite simple equation", because it apparently isn't.
-
I wasn't arguing that. But since you bring it up, how do you know, "We can't do this." Haven't you ever heard your boss talk about opportunities? We would almost certainly be further along if it weren't for incumbent industries attaching all the anchors onto developing industries.
We economically and physically can't do it using the suggested policies or any current technology.
We would almost certainly be further along if it weren't for incumbent industries attaching all the anchors onto developing industries.
Right now, we can't travel to the edge of the galaxy.
There. I've said it. I'm unemployable.
A lot of bad arguments are made in this regard. An example is the, "...solar cells are worthless because they don't work at night," argument. It's true they don't work at night, but they work fine in daytime; and every kWh produced by solar in the daytime is a pound of coal (or gas, etc.) that doesn't have to be burned in the daytime. In fact, if all daytime power was produced by solar instead of coal, we'd be well on our way to solving this problem.
It has taken 10 years for solar to become self-sufficient by my standard. Which means, solar is now producing enough energy, consistently, to pay for its own energy debt in the creation of solar panels.
If we had stopped coal production 5 years ago, we would have been unable to make any new solar panels.
But we can't do anything about that; it's a poor excuse to shrug our shoulders and say, "So then we shouldn't do anything about what we can or might change." That's like saying, "I'm never going to repair my house because an earthquake might knock it down next week."
The difference between the scenarios, is that "repairing your house" would cost more than your salary over the next 20 years.
-
The difference between the scenarios, is that "repairing your house" would cost more than your salary over the next 20 years.
Bullshit, it's just a few countries that need to get their shit together.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
-
No, this is bullshit.
Canada has the same per capita as US.
China is double ours for half the per capita, and they've already made it clear they won't do shit.
My conclusion from this chart, is that the solution is to kill off most of the population of China, America, and Europe, or we can live like Indians.
It's the only viable sustainable solution we have.
-
What's the problem of living like indians? cc: @stillwater
-
What's the problem of living like indians?
Nothing.
It's just the only one on that chart that has low emissions and lower per capita emissions, that registers. That's why I picked that one out.
To be honest, I don't know what India is like, personally.
The only thing I can legitimately say, is that they like coming here, and I like that they can.
@stillwater is it feasible for Americans to adopt the lower energy consumption?
-
We have low emissions here too, and I have no idea what you americans do to emit so much co2.
-
We have low emissions here too, and I have no idea what you americans do to emit so much co2.
There are still some coal power plants, though they are slowly being replaced. We tend to own more vehicles and drive more then Europeans. Those are just a couple factors off the top of my head.
-
But despite the per capita being half of US, they are nearly equal in actual output.
But, unless China is on board, it's not even worth worrying about.
-
We have hydroelectric power, but USA has nuclear. You have 4x the number of cars, but you should be able to adapt to one car per house just fine.
What else emits co2?
-
But, unless China is on board, it's not even worth worrying about.
That's a cheap excuse, you can solve both yours and China's emissions using nuclear energy.
The USA keeps blocking everyone else from using nuclear energy because weapons. But its co2 that will kill us all, not weapons.
-
The currently accepted model for how CO2 works in the atmosphere is that it absorbs heat radiated from the earth's surface, holds it for a time, and later radiates it into space. As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the altitude at which heat escapes is increased, which is what causes the "warming" effect
Uh, no. CO2 captures IR radiation coming from Earth's surface and then radiates that energy in a random direction. Which means that parts of the original IR radiation will be radiated back at Earth. No "holding" required.
-
That's a cheap excuse, you can solve both yours and China's emissions using nuclear energy.
I agree.
But we can spin our little nuclear wheels all we like, and China can be like 'nope', yellowstone can be like 'nope', and so on.
So it makes no sense to make drastic changes that will hurt the economy, when it's barely standing up as is.
Unless, that's your plan. Turn everything into Detroit, make Fallout 4 a reality. We certainly would emit less CO2 then.
There's obvious slow growth towards green energy, and liberals overestimate how much they can speed that up with regulation. That's the major flaw with this whole debate. That something can realistically be done faster than it currently is already being done.
-
You have 4x the number of cars, but you should be able to adapt to one car per house just fine.
Have you seen how big the US is compared to Europe? How spread out we are? Public transit is non-existent around my house. It's 5 miles to the nearest retail store, 7 miles to the nearest grocery store, and that's just the essentials. I live 35 miles from my place of employment. Tell me, how are we supposed to survive with fewer than 2 cars?
-
Uh, no. CO2 captures IR radiation coming from Earth's surface and then radiates that energy in a random direction. Which means that parts of the original IR radiation will be radiated back at Earth. No "holding" required.
Yes, but the absorbed energy is also not released immediately. So it is held for an indeterminate amount of time. The holding isn't technically required for global warming models to work, but it does happen.
-
you should be able to adapt to one car per house just fine
Fucking metropolitan thinking. Absolutely no idea what it's like to have to walk more than a block to get to your destination.
Tell me, how are we supposed to survive with fewer than 2 cars?
It's easy. Enact a real patriarchy, be a real man, and put your wife in the kitchen making you sammiches.
If she needs to go to the hospital.... just replace her.
Kids... meh.... get enough concubines and at least one will survive to take on your name.
-
We have hydroelectric power, but USA has nuclear.
And hydro. And solar. And wind.
Nuclear is not a great solution because you have a problem with waste. Yes, there are some reactors that can be fueled with waste from conventional nuclear reactors, but that doesn't make the waste completely safe, and you still need to do something with it.
-
that doesn't make the waste completely safe, and you still need to do something with it.
Who needs books.... we have iPads, much better for the environment.
Oh yeah, where do you get the electricity.
Environmentalism is like the whack-a-mole game.
You solve one "problem" by creating 5 more problems.
But who cares about the solution creating more problems. Too busy blaming the new problems on other people.
-
It's easy. Enact a real patriarchy, be a real man, and put your wife in the kitchen making you sammiches.
She already does that. And she does the grocery shopping. And she homeschools our kids. I'm not sure she could do all that without a car. If I took her car away, I'd have to do … more work.
