D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
They're also the reason the country is past peak Hydro as well. Because dams destroy native habitats and destroy fish populations.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Mathematical Formula Predicts Global Mass Extinction Event in 2100
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
They're also the reason the country is past peak Hydro as well. Because dams destroy native habitats and destroy fish populations.
WhoBeDaPlaya
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2002
- Messages
- 2,642
Meh, same difference. Either rub one out before, or go out with a bang 
The main cause of the housing bubble is the lack of new housing.
The main reason they are not building enough new housing is due to the environmental restrictions (where you can build, what you can build, etc), and the high costs to get approval to build, and the high costs to actually build.
If we where build homes as fast as they do in Texas, the prices would be a lot more reasonable.
But that's ok with me.
I have my house, and as long as they keep pushing more restrictions, the price will keep going up.
When I retire and move to another state, the proceeds will be enough to buy a new place and to fund a comfortable retirement.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
And there are actually natural food additives that can be given to cows and other herd animals that severely decreases methane production (colloquially known as cow farts).
The Republican party represents private companies, corporate lobbying, and the 1%. They want companies to run everything, no regulation, and no taxes because wealth starts from the top; for their personal benefit instead of what's best for the people. Republicans are strongly against climate change. They try to discredit scientists by using disinformation, religion, and politics to muddy the waters because their private companies profit from deregulation. To them, cleaning the environment is a poor people problem. They don't feel guilty because they follow the regulation guidelines set by the government; and if there was a problem, regulations would stop them from doing what they do, despite themselves voting against such regulations. Tree huggers and natural scientists will always exist for little wealth, so some poor people will always clean up their mess, it's below them. Cut profits for a better environment? No way! They put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. There's your money trail, follow the trail of deregulation for personal gain. see: Redditor proves that the Republican party consistently and almost unanimously votes for policies harmful to the vast majority of Americans https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6tm9h5/cmv_over_the_next_1020_years_the_biggest_threat/dlm31u9/?context=3
Claiming that there will be a mass extinction in the year 2100 seems stupid. Past mass extinctions have all been processes that went on for hundreds of years, so it's impossible to pick a finite date when it happened.
Currently we seem to be well on our way into the sixth global mass extinction, as shown in this report, reviewed by The Guardian and Science Advances. Whether this process will "peak" in 2100 or not I don't know...
Currently we seem to be well on our way into the sixth global mass extinction, as shown in this report, reviewed by The Guardian and Science Advances. Whether this process will "peak" in 2100 or not I don't know...
His post that I was replying to was throwing some shade on AGW and the research though and his reasoning to do so wasn't any good.
I post links to either quality articles or good research all the time so you're kinda flat out lying here when you try to claim there is a belief system at work.
A) Its 1 degree on avg. NOW. The really awful stuff doesn't start to happen until we get around 2 degree avg. increase. Which is expected to happen since we're still putting too much CO2/greenhouse gases out.
B) A single degree or 2 makes a big difference. 3 or 4 degrees....well I'd point out on that same chart that only a ~4 degree colder difference was enough to create ice age climates.
C) Note the bottom of the graphs "optimistic" and "current path" curves. Note the time frame of how fast they're happening too compared to other events on that chart.
When it comes to AGW there is a very large minority (upwards of 30% as of mid 2016) who believe it isn't due to CO2 though, certainly not man made CO2 at that. They just say, "oh well the climate changes all the time historically without humans involvement therefore it couldn't be due to anything humans are doing this time around" and flat out ignore any evidence to the contrary. Those sorts of people are causing real problems and as much as I wish calling them fools would make them change their minds or at least go away and stop voting for anti-AGW Congressman like Lamar Smith it won't.
Citation needed. Since there is good evidence to the contrary. The "alarmists" as you call them are scared a runaway global warming MIGHT result since some fo the models suggest its possible and are essentially saying "lets not even bother risking going down our current path any further since the risks are too great".
Nooope. Analogies are meant for EXACTLY that sort of thing since that is literally what they are. As in that is the definition.
https://www.difference.wiki/analogy-vs-metaphor/
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy
https://literaryterms.net/analogy/
A detailed answer is much more complex but 100yr is the broadly accepted short hand time frame for excess CO2 to be sequestered naturally down to something much closer to the more recent human era but still pre-industrial era levels.
The solar PVC panels already can cost less than the installation, racking, inverters, etc. without subsidies. The industry reached the point 2yr ago that subsidies are no longer needed to increase installations. And costs have only continued to drop since then, down around 30% for 2017 so far. And they'll continue to drop by similar levels for a while and that is even before the perovskite panels start to show up.
Virtually nothing is clean to make. Its how you dispose of the waste that is the issue. If you dump it all into the ocean or river then yeah that is bad. If you dispose of it properly then there is no issue. Actual practical lifespan of PVC's is more like 25-30yr too BTW. They tend to degrade quite a bit by 20yr but useful amounts of power are still being produced by them for quite a bit longer than that.
I like nuclear actually but there is far too much political push against it and PVC/wind are getting good enough to make the issue moot. Ultimately I don't care too much how we get clean sustainable energy, just that we get it.
By default the brunt of most carbon taxes would be born by the wealthy/monied interests though.
When it was first built that wasn't the case though. Same thing goes for all those coastal regions that'll be effected by climate change from AGW. Its also worth pointing out that quite a bit of the people at most risk of being effected adversely by AGW live in highly Repub (ie. FL or LA) areas where they vote in anti-AGW representatives. Ultimately everything is going to get effected, there'll be no place where you can say "oh well you shouldn't have built a city there 100yr+ ago, didn't you know it'd be effected by AGW?".
I did that already.
They can model and predict the natural cycles, just not perfectly and not too well over short time durations. Over longer time durations (ie. 10yr) they're generally accepted to be fairly decent actually.
Fluff piece? Well post some quality citations then that support your previous statements here on this subject.
No, there are no assumptions. But there is some pretty good evidence and research on the subject. Why don't you address that if you won't listen to what I have to say?
They're virtually all considered dangerous or insane though by most experts. And its not that anyone isn't looking at these geoengineering methods but very few have any faith in geoengineering a solution out of this mess right now and even many of its proponents see it as a "hail mary" play since efforts to reduce CO2 haven't been very effective for the most part due to politics and the interference of monied interests.
All of human society and its industry are unnatural, we depend on it for our livelihoods, so if you want to call that "combat" then sure I guess.
If you're only looking at the sea level change you're missing half the picture. Saltwater contamination and sewage system failures will be a problem loooong before then. Parts of FL and LA are already having issues with this that didn't have much of a problem 20yr ago.
That doesn't matter to the point at hand: CO2 can and has been shown to cause extinction level events with highly prolonged effects that took centuries or millennia for life to recover from.
Just like I said earlier. You're one of those "because we don't know it all we can't know anything" types. That is some serious grade A bad faith nonsense. You put some good solid effort into a reply I might bother to address it but otherwise don't bother replying if you're going to say this sort of stuff.
When trying to solve a problem its a normal and reasonable thing to try and determine the cause since the cause will often dictate just how exactly you go about solving it.
There is no virtue signaling going on with AGW, that is some Alt-Right BS.
During the previous bubble that popped in 2005-2006 there was tons of supply and prices still spiraled to stupid levels and then still popped 30%+ on average.
Increasing supply only works to reduce prices in a relatively reasonable market. Bubbles have nothing to do with reason and so reasonable things won't necessarily have an effect until the bubble pops that is.
Nope. Builders are keeping supply low on purpose because they know its a bubble and they learned their lesson from the last time and will not be caught with high inventory of expensive homes in a crashing market.
Yeah, but you lack empathy, which isn't a good thing.
The worry about methane isn't so much from cows but from methane clathrates on the ocean floor melting and releasing gas + the tundra/permafrost in Canada/Russia melting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
That is where some of the more apocalyptic predictions are coming from.
The methane releases in the arctic are going to speed things up quite a bit. There are large deposits of methane that are just under the frozen surface so raising the temps in Alaska for instance is going to have a dramatic effect on the entire planet. There is no more "if", it is happening and we have gone past the point of no return. We need to think long term and find ways to live in the world as it changes.
Why waste valuable resources trying to fix (or minimize) a problem that doesn't exist? We see increased CO2 levels = increased greening:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
So-called scientists have done a poor job demonstrating through the scientific method that CO2 is actually a problem. Simply declaring it is so is not sufficient.
I have a technical and scientific background. I was taught that while true objectivity is impossible nevertheless one should still strive to be as objective as possible. This means honestly considering not only your perspective but opposite perspectives as well. One cannot assume they are correct. A true objective scientist will not only try to prove his position but also true to honestly disprove one's position as well. If I honestly fail to disprove my position than I have generated real support for my position. This is why I seek debates on this subject. Not to troll but to test my position against others.
CO2 is a vital component in the CO2 - O2 cycle. Plants breath CO2 and exhale O2. CO2 is absolutely "not" a pollutant but vital for plant life which is in turn vital for our life.
Misuse of analogy... One does not need to consume salt every moment of your life. One "must" breath O2 to live. Plants "must" breath CO2 to live. Plants convert CO2 to O2. Animals convert O2 to CO2. It is a vital cycle for all living things. It is absurd to suggest that a vital component for life is a pollutant. I'm sorry if you cannot understand this and that those who do suggest that CO2 is a pollutant have no credibility.
Sorry but your cartoon was based up the work of Michael E. Mann of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) whose work has be criticized by statisticians Stephen McIntyre and David Hand for faulty statistical methodology which exaggerates his results. Similar studies by Jan Esper (Esper et al 2002, 2006, 2012, 2014) clearly shows Roman and Medieval warm periods that were as warm or warmer than recent temperatures and are not reflected in your cartoon.
If one is going to reference scientists one should be familiar with all the scientists. Suggesting all scientists are in agreement is like saying all politicians in America agree; it should be a major red flag. Either Michael Mann is right or Jan Esper is right but they both cannot be right. Michael Mann's math has been demonstrated to be riddled with errors. You can judge for yourself who to believe...
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
You're switching goal posts. My original claim is that no one believe that more CO2 does not equal higher temps. It's a greenhouse gas. Suddenly you believe i said that there are people who don't believe that global warming is caused by man made CO2. Very different statements. One can believe that increased CO2 does increase temperature but disbelieve that the increase of 2x the CO2 in history is 100% accountable for the change in temperature and sea level. No one is able to give a clear answer on this, or at least to my satisfaction. What % of climate change is caused by man instead of natural causes?
Almost all alarmists want to reduce emissions, not sequester CO2. And lets be honest here, CO2 is not a huge greenhouse gas. It's mostly methane and water vapor. I know Water vapor doesn't increase by itself and is typically increased because of other mechanisms, but there is an upper limit to how much water vapor the atmosphere can hold.
ref: http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp
When you compare a heart to a pump it's because they both pump things. When you compare a poison like arsenic to CO2, they aren't both poisons. One is actually created by the body, arsenic is not. When you start to make analogies to things that don't have much similarities, the comparison fails because there's no common ground.
Excess CO2 being naturally sequestered. That's not what you said previously.
Sorry, does sustainable mean cost effective? I'm fairly sure those are two separate issues. The fact is that solar needs to be replaced in 20 years, it costs a lot of oil to make them, it costs rare earth minerals which there is a finite supply of, plus solar generation will undoubtedly have a need for storage since it's only available for 1/2 of the day on average, not accounting for cloudy/rainy days.
You're going to need batteries for storage which is not needed in almost any other system out there. Batteries which are even worse to make than solar panels and last a lot less time/need to be replaced. There will just be a shift from damage to the atmosphere to polluting the environment.
Nuclear is a lot less dirty than any other source of energy. If politics allowed for fast reactors/breeders to be developed to recycle the waste it would reduce the need for long term storage and reuse all the old material down to 1% left.
That being said, fusion should be around the corner with ITER. Besides some neutron decay, it's clean and more efficient than anything else out there.
So even though there's a solution which can be scaled and can be run overnight and doesn't need replacement for 150+ years, you'd rather go the politically sound route which is creating a non-sustainable industry?
Explain how? This is beyond silly if you really believe this. The costs will be passed directly to the customers in terms of energy bills. Do you think rich/wealthy people can't afford the best equipment which is extremely efficient? It's the poor ones who get whatever's available in terms of appliances which can be old and inefficient. Case and point with a/c units. They'll get wall units instead of installing a highly efficient central dual scroll compressor with higher than 21 seer because that's a luxury.
ref: http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2015/02/shifting_doorframes_cracking_d.html
"By the 1930s, a metropolis that originally lay above sea level saw one-third of its land surface sink below that level.
By the 2000s, roughly half of the metropolis was below sea level -- by 3 to 6 feet in parts of Broadmoor, 5 to 8 feet in parts of Lakeview and Gentilly, and 6 to 12 feet in parts of Metairie and New Orleans East.
Why those spots? Because they were the lowest to begin with, and thus had the most water to lose closest to the surface and the most peat to oxidize."
since the 1930s (almost 90 years ago) this was an ongoing problem that started to get worse and worse. you'd have to be a moron to continue to live there.
Let me ask you, how does voting a democrat that wants to fight global warming help anything? What is a politician going to do? It's not even a local problem to solve nor are there any viable solutions being implemented to prevent or reverse problems. If you think politicians can do anything about this then you're not living in reality.
Great. I look at google earth all the time for prospective houses and land. Gotta be at least 50 feet above sea level for my tastes.
they can't even model the sun spot cycles, yet you believe they have modeled the natural clime cycle? Citation needed.
Fluff piece is the linked article to this story. It has 0 details on the linking between Carbon sequestering in the ocean and how it's related to mass extinction events. Feel free to enlighten me with any information on the subject.
I'm claiming there to be a lack of information on the relation. How can i give a citation for a lack of information?
you haven't said anything about how CO2 leads to an ME event.
reducing CO2 and sequestering CO2 is very different. One passes the buck down the road and the other one reverses the situation. There are some startups that have proposed methods to sequester CO2 artificially to help combat the unbalance that exists because of man. However there's is 0 attention given to them.
If florida is at sea level and the natural course of the climate is to increase (obviously from the little ice age in the medieval times to now the climate was naturally increasing), then humanity has just sped along the process. So if humans didn't exist, most of florida would be underwater in 500-1000 years. Instead it's more like 100-200 years. So are you suggesting that humans should combat this and try and make sure florida is always above sea level? If not, then wouldn't it make sense to let nature take it's course and suggest to people to relocate from florida?
it would have been a problem anyways.
Citation needed with details. Are you going to start combining CO2 with methane soon?
No, i fully agree that CO2 is double what it was before industrialization. We could tackle that issue now by sequestering and lowering sea temperatures with plume boats. We could reduce atmospheric pollution by switching to mostly nuclear generation. We could push for electric cars for reduction of transportation pollution (which seems to be the natural evolution of cars anyways). But we shouldn't just put a tax on the issue and think it'll somehow magically fix the problem.
Industrial problems require industrial solutions, not political ones.
Nice, just because a link has "science" in the name, doesn't mean it was done by scientists:
"The site was founded by married couple Dan and Michele Hogan in 1995; Dan Hogan formerly worked in the public affairs department of Jackson Laboratory writing press releases.[4] The site makes money from selling advertisements.[4] As of 2010, the site said that it had grown "from a two-person operation to a full-fledged news business with worldwide contributors" but at the time, it was run out of the Hogans' home, had no reporters, and only reprinted press release"
And on your next post, I noted it was a cartoon to combat your obvious belief that the problem does not exist, much like a religion. You go out of your way to show non-science as science. Just go out and get the data and do the research yourself and prove the 98% wrong. It is the same thing as not believing that cigarettes cause cancer. Just keep smoking and telling yourself it is a conspiracy and smoke on brother....
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
We're already being told that the issue is CO2 emissions (with Methane emissions being contributory). We know which industries are putting out large quantities of CO2 (primarily our power generation industry) with concrete production coming in a distant second.
- Move away from power generation sources that output CO2.
- Implement enough new capacity that we can use spare power capacity for carbon sequestration.
- Move towards forms of concrete that output less CO2 or somehow sequester it.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Neither of which are man-made. And neither of which we can necessarily directly affect.
Still, if reducing man-made CO2 and methane emissions helps retard/stop/reverse these natural progressions...
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
I'm not saying "get rid of all CO2" (Christ, a "not all" argument...). I'm saying a reduction in manmade inputs of various greenhouse gasses and sequestration in an attempt to offset the last few hundred years of inputs is not technically unfeasible.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Agreed pretty much first to last.
D
Deleted member 88301
Guest
It's not that I want to die anytime soon, but a near total extinction event would be great for the planet.
I'm not sure where I read this, but earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. are just Earths' way of trying to rid itself of annoying parasites.
I'm not sure where I read this, but earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. are just Earths' way of trying to rid itself of annoying parasites.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
from what?
Wrong... I'm not sure why I am responding because you obviously are challenged cognitively... The article was citing research by the Australian National University which was conducted by scientists. Had you read the article you would have understood that (than again maybe not). The website which published the story is irrelevant in that they did not conduct the research but was merely reporting the findings of actual scientists. It's not surprising you would miss that...
Similarly you accept the cartoon with typical religious fervor without realizing that it is based upon what many believe to be discredited science and which is contradicted by more respected scientists whom I cited.
Maybe you should take a little time to actually study the science on both sides of the issue. I cited specific research you could read if you comprehension is sufficient to the task. Than again maybe not...
... and I'm saying the evidence is lacking to suggest man made inputs of CO2 is a problem at all. In fact increasing levels of CO2 may in fact be beneficial. Why invest resources in a hypothesis that seems based more on ideology than actual science?
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
I agree with both points. CO2 may be a problem, it may also not be a problem, it may in fact be beneficial/prevent ice ages/increase foliage.
I don't see why we can't figure out how to engineer the atmosphere and capture CO2 as a test to control the atmosphere in case of the worst case scenarios made by the proponents of AGW. The captured CO2 can be utilized in CO2 rich greenhouses for food production at industrial scales. We could use it to capture carbon and create hydrocarbons for fuel. I think the fuel producing algae work in this manner.
Wrong because a circus website you linked showed one point saying all of the others are wrong? Link one credible site... not infowars, angryscientists, or any other shill. Link to the Aussie one yourself. Show us the data on how all of the actual science papers and websites are wrong. You seem to know how it works, and you think that you understand this better than the vast majority, so show us your super fucking powers...
At what point does a fact become a fact? At what point would you believe that asbestos is bad for you? After hundreds of science papers say it is true or is the other way around?
You have to realise the people making these type of claims has been no where near any type of scientific/high educational experience.
Global Warming Theory is obviously defended politically.
Speak from authority by Proxy.
Speak from claim of consensus.
Discredit opponents, not their work at hand.
Acknowledge the corrupt incentives of only than skeptic side.
Construct a panic doomsday narrative with villains. <- almost religious and not just political.
Demonize/disparage opponents in general.
Political Solutions only.
Ignore the ineffectiveness of the political solutions
Sure, its all a Science thing. Where the Science needs to be protected politically and sold with a religious doomsday narrative.
Speak from authority by Proxy.
Speak from claim of consensus.
Discredit opponents, not their work at hand.
Acknowledge the corrupt incentives of only than skeptic side.
Construct a panic doomsday narrative with villains. <- almost religious and not just political.
Demonize/disparage opponents in general.
Political Solutions only.
Ignore the ineffectiveness of the political solutions
Sure, its all a Science thing. Where the Science needs to be protected politically and sold with a religious doomsday narrative.
illram
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,473
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
It is a wonder why no one has high carbon greenhouses. The carbon increase over the last 100 years has increased global temps roughly by the same amount as typically 5000 years, so while yes, temps rise and fall, not to the severity and degree of the last 100 years. If you look at society and human history over the last 100 years, we know where the carbon is coming from, because if humans weren't here, that coal would not have been burned. The fossil fuels would still be buried. The methane pockets in the arctic would still be under permafrost. I'm done arguing, because this is just like the evolution argument, and you will believe what you believe no matter what, all the while not even trying to understand or learn about actual facts and science. Lets just agree to disagree, and in 20 years, we can speak on it again and see if it is a fact then...
That hasn't been true for decades.
The 1% mainly support Democrats. This includes Wall Street, large corporations, Government unions, and most companies dependent on government handouts.
Democrats also get the support of the poor, which must be why they keep enacting policies to create more of them.
(like out here in Democrat controlled California where 20% now live in poverty).
Republicans? They are the party of small business owners, the working class, and people who are sick of government overreach.
I'm barely in the middle class here in Southern California, and almost every government action that has harmed me over the past 20 years has been promoted and passed by Democrats.
High health insurance costs, high energy costs, high housing costs, higher taxes, higher college costs, etc.
Guess my sarcasm was wasted on you.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
All the follow the money people denying climate change, I can't tell if joking or mathematically illiterate. Please point to all the Fortune 500 companies that stand to make all these trillions of dollars if climate change is real; please point to the ones making money off of it now!
$30B in US federal science funding since 1989....what, roughly $1B a year? That's the oil industries annual holiday party budget. In 2017, with oil in a years-long slump, the top 25 oil and gas companies had $2.2 trillion in sales and $73B in profit.
But yes, evil big green, looking to steal our dollars for clean air and water.
$30B in US federal science funding since 1989....what, roughly $1B a year? That's the oil industries annual holiday party budget. In 2017, with oil in a years-long slump, the top 25 oil and gas companies had $2.2 trillion in sales and $73B in profit.
But yes, evil big green, looking to steal our dollars for clean air and water.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Funny enough, political donations are public, so you can quantify these claims. The most detailed breakdown I was able to find was from 2014, which showed that Democrats raised ~18% of their contributions from the 0.01%, while Republicans raised 29% of their money that way. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...14-mega-donors-fuel-rising-cost-of-elections/
Further, government overreach? The USA PATRIOT Act is only around still because of Republicans, who keep bringing it up for votes to reauthorize it and providing the majority votes to do so.
So you point a report with major flaws and errors, yet even this report shows each party raising similar amounts.
How about a few studies that show otherwise:
https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrat-political-donations-outstrip-republicans/
Reality
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,937
Both parties are establishment corporate cocksuckers. Pardon my french.