Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,569
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    This isn't Star Trek, let's just deal with reality.
    They eat more generally now they aren't all peasants.
     
  2. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    reality by design. I reject your reality and substitute my own. Changes are in progress.

    But still totally reliant on Agrarian practices.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2018
  3. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,569
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    Well then, by that measure I reject your reality that we need to do a damn thing. I'm off to live in a gilded cave on Jupiter surrounded by Ms World contestants.
    You might want to have another look.
     
  4. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    still butchering the wildlife are we? fish farming is also a thing. unless you're living on air. sustainable fishing.

    ..but i dont know much about that. the peasants do all the work for me.

    :lol: but i do like my tomatoes. yum.

    ----

    send me a photo of your spacetrek. ill be on earth. are all those ms world contestants prepaid? or just anaesthetized?

    dont forget to pack some space rations. a space farm may be bulky.
    -----------
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing
    [​IMG]

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/fish-stocks-are-used-up-fisheries-subsidies-must-stop/

     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2018
  5. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,070
    Location:
    Veg City
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
  6. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,569
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    Just in time to irritate Christmas family gatherings, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, says that catastrophic claims of rising sea levels are nonsense:
    Predictions of 21st-century sea level rise higher than 60cm are increasingly weakly justified, even if the predicted amount of warming is correct. Predictions higher than 1.6m require a cascade of extremely unlikely to impossible events, using simplistic models of poorly understood processes.

    Additional sea level rise of 60cm or less across a century can be a relatively minor problem if it is managed appropriately.​
     
  7. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    12,105
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Unfortunately all my family members are sane... maybe I have to be 'that' guy this year :weirdo:
     
  8. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    7,916
    Location:
    Sydney
    Possibly if that's the only problem to arise over the century.
    It seems to me that much of the heated debate is caused by some climate scientists taking a rigid "good science" position of criticizing predictions. Others pick this up to decry the dire predictions as being outright false.
     
  9. dr_deathy

    dr_deathy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,530
    Not all of us pay to use the ministry of truth.

    60cm will mean massive erosion issues for the hairless apes that built most of their major cities on the coast line as close as they could to the water. Like you have seen the ocean right? its got a few waves. but hey if we cant find the money to stop using coal and oil i assume we are saving up for the multi trillion dollar upgrade to our cities.
     
  10. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    the money grubbers living in their ivory towers wont do a damn thing until the shit hits the fan. and it affects their wealth and power. just so long as the masses dont go into open revolt and upset them too much. and even that can be 'managed'

    all hail fascist consumerism; its proponents and its thralls.

    ----
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-consumerism
    i'll plop it here anyway. as ricky gervais said at the golden globes "I don't care" :D
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2018
  11. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,070
    Location:
    Veg City
    Getting warm in here...

     
    adamsleath likes this.
  12. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    puts it into historical context. and basically concurs with my latest readings on it.


    ..extinction of land based mammals comes to mind.

    #extinctionrebellion

    ---
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2018
  13. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,569
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    Further to my other posts about the economics of dealing with climate change, particularly these arbitrary targets politicians are fond of setting, this is an interesting read:

    William Nordhaus versus the United Nations on Climate Change Economics

    William Nordhaus was a co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Prize in economics for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change. On the day of the Nobel announcement, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released a special report1 advising the governments of the world on various steps necessary to limit cumulative global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The major media coverage treated the two events as complementary.2In fact, they are incompatible. Although Nordhaus favors a carbon tax to slow climate change, his own model shows that the UN’s target would make humanity poorer than doing nothing at all about climate change.

    Indeed, we can use Nordhaus’s and other standard models to show that the now-championed 1.5°C target is ludicrously expensive, far more costly than the public has been led to believe. This is presumably why the new IPCC special report does not even attempt to justify its policy goals in a cost/benefit framework. Rather, it takes the 1.5°C target as a politically “given” constraint and then discusses the pros and cons of various mechanisms to achieve it.
    Nordhaus co-developed the Dynamic Integrated Model of Climate and the Economy (DICE) used to estimate the “social cost of carbon (SCC)” to arrive at a carbon tax which would become a market mechanism for recognising negative externalises and drive alternative behaviour. The author of the article, Robert P. Murphy, uses this model applied to UN IPCC estimates (as variously amended/ updated) to show the world economy would be ~$14 trillion worse off.

    For those so inclined, the author is an economist at the Institute for Energy Research, which is variously described as sceptical of the 'existence and extent of anthropogenic climate change'. He's also a christian who questions evolutionary theory.
     
  14. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    under the current model of valuation, production, and transactions. and presumeably (?) this is prior to the shift and transition to a new model which would replace it and prove (unknown) to realise an improved quality of life (which is subjective)

    Total value of transactions. that's the bottom line of measurement in dollarised terms of GDP. This can and does shift toward alternative transactions for alternative technologies and practices.

    The opportunities for new businesses in a new model are there. But as it exists today, right this very moment, or even in the planning stages of proposed projects, of course it will meet with opposition to those who already invested in businesses that will be replaced or will change over to an improved model. the boogy man of the ' $$$worse off' is the scare tactic for those who dont want to change to a better way.

    divest and reinvest.

    the scare tactic that "humanity will be poorer" is the status quo estimated cost, the estimated 'cost' to the 'prior model' Once a new economic model is in place, who can project what it's GDP or total valuation will be? That new economy has not come into being yet.

    Where there is investment. there is profit, and value.
     
    BurningFeetMan likes this.
  15. neRok

    neRok Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,748
    Location:
    Perth NOR
    The USA is continuing to set a great example...

    @OzRinger makes some pretty terrible posts in other threads, but he is bang on about 1 point - too many people aren't initiating change at the personal level.

    Regarding humanity being poorer, there are billions of people out there responsible for only a fraction of what an Australian contributes in a year. They can't get poorer.

    Today, we have the problem, but we don't have the technology to solve the problem whilst maintaining our lifestyle. It's gotta change, and that means people need to consume less, which I guess means they are poorer. Shit happens. The debt is due, and it's time to pay.
     
  16. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    135,496
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    For interest it's now been confirmed that 2018 was Australia's third hottest year on record.
     
  17. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,070
    Location:
    Veg City
    As it stands, the middle class is the working poor. Humanity is financially bust, whilst the rich are getting richer. If I'm not mistaken, the world that we know today will be a very, very harsh place to live after my mortgage is paid off...
     
  18. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,971
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    That's the most sheltered first world thing I've heard in a while. The middle classes in developed countries will be relatively untouched by climate change compared to the actual poor in developing world with no buying capacity to adapt.
     
  19. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    12,037
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    "buying capacity to adapt"...you mean as things get worse, strain on resources etc, commodities will become increasingly expensive? (not a very nice model imo., more like some form of carrot and stick argument for the human race...)

    It is a basic premise to improve long term sustainability to stabilise human populations.

    One characteristic of the current monetised 'system' is a wealth hierarchy has evolved, increasingly entrenched (which is fine; it brings social and productive stability and longevity). I dont have a problem with hierarchies, or labelling of "poor" "middle class" or "rich". Wealth and productivity needs to be sustainable, ecologically sound. recognise resource cycles that are essentially closed loop on a finite Earth....bleh I'll just keep spinning the environmentalist view ad nauseum, rather than the petrie dish model.

    For those microclimates where temperatures are already very high, bordering on health risk, where elderly just perish in heat waves. i'd suggest planting more trees for some shade :lol: a never ending increase in air-conditioners, with humans hiding in their liveable urban caves, isnt going to cut it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019 at 12:00 PM
    BurningFeetMan likes this.
  20. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,971
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    The issue is that what the middle class is depends on who's referencing it.

    And yes, strain on commodities of all sorts. If the basics become more expensive in real terms, how to poor countries invest in infrastructure and environmental projects to mitigate?
     

Share This Page