As for your way of dealing with me, we are set to reconvene on this in 4 years so there is no reason for you to get revved up.
Interesting because they are not the ones who said the debate on AWG is settled and avoids it.
My second point is there are studies and/or scientists who contended or contend that: 1) the health effects of smoking are significantly overstated; 2) being fat or even obese is not a serious health threat; 3) high cholesterol levels do not lead to cardio vascular disease; 4) lead in gasoline poses no threat to human health; 5) DDT poses no health effects and, in fact, is a massive life-saving chemical. The fact is that there are certainly alternatives to pumping carbon into the atmosphere, so why not take that route? Iowa gets 35% of its electricity from wind. What an outrage!
1.0.3 Overview.
Yes we as westerners do dump huge quantities of food, but food safe standards (in Aus at least) prevent a lot of this food even being distributed to Aussies.
The fact is human population cannot keep growing at its current rate. If it does we will outstrip the Earths ability to feed the Human population.
The Earth is a closed eco system with the ability to X life. As human population has grown other less robust species have had to make way (ie extinction).
I know this paper is old but it also gives perspective looking back.
http://lab.rockefeller.edu/cohenje/PDFs/226CohenHumanCacience19951.pdf
Do I believe humans are destroying the planet, ABSOLUTELY, my issue is with the CO2 effect. There is no repeatable experimental evidence that CO2 causes the planet to warm. CBT Systematic Reinforcement, continue reinforcing a behaviour or belief and eventually it will become fact.
Lets ignore all of the harmful s@#t we pump into the atmosphere NOX CO etc.
Instead lets build and buy more electric cars with the associated pollution required to manufacture these vehicles.
I used to see the high tech as the future for humanity, not anymore. I now hope and work for people to live with nature in harmony, voluntary reduction of population with climate going slightly cooler for the next thousand years or so. Climate change or not, we need to stop our toxic ways. There will be pain to motivate us to affect change in our awareness and behavior, but hopefully not that much. The truly baking hot will eventually come from the sun going red giant but I simply can not see that far into the future.
Having children isn't the main problem, the main problem is over consumption, if every household in the world were to live the same lifestyle like the majority of us on this forum were to live, we would need the following.
Press Release June 2019 English – Earth Overshoot Day
How many humans can Earth sustain? And what does it mean if we've already passed it? - Science News - ABC News
Press Release June 2019 English – Earth Overshoot Day
How many humans can Earth sustain? And what does it mean if we've already passed it? - Science News - ABC News
MAN on Vimeo
Huge waste of the energy on the poisons production for " the better toxic life "
Wake Up Call - Steve Cutts
Huge waste of the energy on the poisons production for " the better toxic life "
Wake Up Call - Steve Cutts
“There is no repeatable experimental evidence that CO2 causes the planet to warm.”
Greenhouse gases absorb visible light and higher energy IR and re-radiate it out at lower energy band IR - i.e they prevent or reduce the amount of energy re-radiated out into space and keep it trapped in the lower reaches of the atmosphere. The physics is extremely well understood (see for example black body radiation plots of the earth and atmosphere.
How do you justify making a statement like you did when independent measurements across multiple platforms show both CO2 and temperatures increasing?
Greenhouse gases absorb visible light and higher energy IR and re-radiate it out at lower energy band IR - i.e they prevent or reduce the amount of energy re-radiated out into space and keep it trapped in the lower reaches of the atmosphere. The physics is extremely well understood (see for example black body radiation plots of the earth and atmosphere.
How do you justify making a statement like you did when independent measurements across multiple platforms show both CO2 and temperatures increasing?
Unles there will be a one world government which will implement the plan comparable to forced Russian industrialization or China's Mao " big jump " nothing of significance will be done even if people will be dying in drones. People frequently do die in drones at present times and not much is done . Rich countries will mobilize militaries and protect resources , grab more of them which is pretty much what's going on today and that will not change.There is no so called " humanity " never was and likely never be . I think the times of empires are coming back actually .
Uh, I never found out they were gone, I must update my scarce knowledge then, about how the world has been moving for millennia ... 😉😀
With “all due respect” I think that’s a bit of an over simplification.
The fictional world is full of carefully crafted dystopian futures in which sudden loss of fertility looms as a major factor, but until the genetic programming that we call human nature is rebooted, along with a comprehensive list of corrected issues for our review and edification, I think we’re likely to just rape, pillage and repeat, until we can’t.
To exist with consciousness is a gift beyond quantification, and humankind continues to consider it a divine right to be exercised in perpetuity. If we’re permitted to anthropomorphize, Gaia is probably laffing her a$$ off while taking a wait and see approach. “Well, maybe this greedy little virus will evolve, but if not - well next time maybe no free will”
I meant the old style , not convoluted into pseudo democracy illusion or delusion but the ones with autocratic rulers.
If the doomsday scenario is true Bolsonaro or whoever comes after him if they were smart should quickly acquire nuclear weapons and built up a massive army to protect his Amazon assets. Charge the industrial world as much as OPEC charges for oil for keeping the forest intact. I do not think he is smart enough to do it...
I really have to laugh when the members here are mentioning the need for sacrifices. Most people on the climate boards have no idea what the sacrifice means. Seeing the suffering & sacrifice on TV and experiencing it day after day for the rest of the life is something entirely different.
I know for some the ultimate sacrifice would mean giving up the class A and tube amps and going with Class D -unthinkable ,right? ha ha. I'm beginning to regret that I'm too old and won't see how that climate thing is going to unfold.
I think you're being a little too generous to suggest we're astute enough to grasp the divine. But seeing that you mention it, the reboot is underway, for those who unplug. To err is human, to anthropomorphize, definitely not divine. The myth is the future we see where we've come to our senses and all is well and fine again by our own hands.
Human suffering has been a reliable source of profit for quite a while because victims will do (almost) anything for relief. Think of issues like the feedback loop of junk food addiction resulting in health problems and the required pharmaceuticals (or hospital visits) to suppress the symptoms. The influence of such (powerful) corporations alone is a guarantee that BAU (Business As Usual) will be continued until physically impossible.
Bonsai posted some related graphs already, but overall there is a close relation between birth rate and economic conditions. Though the child death rate in underdeveloped countries is high, childs are supposed to secure the life of their parents when they can't do it themselves any longer (means when getting too old to work).
Isn't that part of the problem, our inability to really understand what it means when something bad happens 100 years hence?
If, for instance, with every ton of CO2 a person generated, he would get an electric jolt, there would be a clear link between cause and effect and we would be motivated to do something about it. If that were the case the issue would be fixed in no time. The immediate punishment or, inversely, immediate gratification is what gets people moving.
In the same sense, having diabetes type 2, I find it hard to avoid eating sweets, because whenever I do, I feel - nothing. Not feeling bad, no pain, nothing. Only my doctors word (which I fully belief) that if I do eat to much sweets, chances are I am shortening my life and increasing the chance of cardio-vascular diseases. But it's not tangible, only words. Until, of course, it is too late.
Jan
As to 'science has not fixed xyz', science is not supposed to fix anything. Science can explain how the world works, how certain things lead to other things, and how problems could be fixed. But still, we as humans need to take the decision to act or nor. And because we voted for politicians who, as a rule, are not concerned with the well-being of the population at large, we're f*cked.
Until, as we say in The Netherlands, 'the quay turns the ship'
Jan
If, for instance, with every ton of CO2 a person generated, he would get an electric jolt, there would be a clear link between cause and effect and we would be motivated to do something about it. If that were the case the issue would be fixed in no time. The immediate punishment or, inversely, immediate gratification is what gets people moving.
In the same sense, having diabetes type 2, I find it hard to avoid eating sweets, because whenever I do, I feel - nothing. Not feeling bad, no pain, nothing. Only my doctors word (which I fully belief) that if I do eat to much sweets, chances are I am shortening my life and increasing the chance of cardio-vascular diseases. But it's not tangible, only words. Until, of course, it is too late.
Jan
As to 'science has not fixed xyz', science is not supposed to fix anything. Science can explain how the world works, how certain things lead to other things, and how problems could be fixed. But still, we as humans need to take the decision to act or nor. And because we voted for politicians who, as a rule, are not concerned with the well-being of the population at large, we're f*cked.
Until, as we say in The Netherlands, 'the quay turns the ship'
Jan
Staggering amount of waste. Interestingly, on a global level, food production has has increased dramatically (the green revolution) so places that could not feed themselves 70 years ago (India, China i.a.o) are now much better off.
Thanks; I thought to have missed it as you were talking about the measurement uncertainty in the temperature anomaly numbers (at least it was my understanding of your post and I couldn't find an according statement in the report), but in the overview/summary it is the uncertainty range for the value of the predicted increase number:
"An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-asUsual) emissions of greenhouse gases;"
Of course I don't know about the specifics (like the food safety standards that you've mentioned) but it seems that the problem exists due to overproduction of food and to offer customers a broad range and then have to dump the not purchased remaining.
Without overproduction wheat (as example) could be distributed to regions where people are suffering from hunger.
Most likely;I've recently read skimmed through Meadow's limit of growth and there is IMO a lot happening that they've predicted.
As I've stated in my response to CalWeldon's post, usully birth rate goes down if development and social safety provisions goe up, as parents don't have to rely on children to ensure their survival.
I think, as stated by Bonsai? before, there is a lot of experimental evidence (and theoretical evidence) for the said effect of CO2, but as there are a lot of additional variables in the games (see for example the hypothesis that cloud forming in the atmosphere is dependent on an external factor like cosmic rays universe; strange idea I initially thought but there seems to be experimental support for the hypothesis too) and as it was already mentioned in the first IPCC assessment, it all in all in the range of normal temperature variability so presumably only possible to sort it out in hindsight.
All under the assumption that no other factors - mentioned too in this thread - will happen, like strong volcano eruptions, asteroid impact, and so on.
It seems that our understanding, why the earth temperature variability is existing in the observed range, is still limited.
But anyway it is suprising that the CFC attempt has worked back in 1987 (although I've read about recent violations coming allegedly from parts of China) and today there is such an ignorance wrt climate change.
Besides the problem of amateurs acting as head of states, most countries did not do enough; for example Germany statistically did a lot in reducing of greenhouse gas emissions, but it was mainly an effect from the reunion and the associated deconstruction of the industry in the former GDR.
You seem to be correct exchange of fueledautomobiles with e-drives will not solve the problem ......
- Status
- Not open for further replies.