Climate Change discussion split from "2050"

[Grayman]

It's true and this is also why Earth will never have a runaway greenhouse effect as extreme as Venus' until the Sun increases in temperature (this is a long way off yet ^^). The problem we have on this planet now though is that by the time equilibrium is reached, the damage has already been done and current environments will have been destroyed.

Extreme climate changes are natural events that have happened every few millennia/millenniums or so. What's happening now however is that we as a species are accelerating the process.

Sure, humans have survived ice ages and no doubt will probably survive the next one, but at what cost?

I'm missing the connection between global 'warming' and iceage.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I forgive you for who you are...Just like I forgave TheGopher for being a lover, not a fighter.

And it continues.

Here we go again

*high five*

Sorry. I just found his paragraph to be a tad bit convoluted. If people want clarification about what say, all they need to do is ask. I agree with THD, some solutions to problems are not the be all end all.

Not to rehash entirely, but...

I don't doubt your expertise, however, there's a key difference in terms of belief validity. Economics, especially the austrian school (but really... the large majority of economics), is devoid of empirical data when it comes to describing reality. Observations? Yup. Case studies? Yup. Micro-scale controlled experiments? Some; it depends on the aspect/component as some are more testable than others. Macro-scale controlled experiments? No, and I will hammer this point forever.

What I've done is derived general rules that are extensions of the laws of physics. I'm fairly certain you know I strongly favor thermoeconomics, but I'm not certain you know why.

Here's why:

I propose dynamic equilibrium and the establishment of localized, resource & technology-specific management. Toothbrushes are disposable and their function is readily available through multiple means. Private property? Fine. Oil is none of these things. Private property? Hell naw. Oil is common in Saudi Arabia. Private property? Maybe, for some time, until it is no longer common. Area 1 has more efficient (less polluting) oil extraction technology than neighboring Area 2. Area 1's oil is extracted first. Is the product of your labor yours? That depends on what it's made of, and how ubiquitous said product is in your community.

One-size-fits-all solutions fail quickly and regularly. This isn't the product of some arbitrary rule enforced by a tangible higher power, but a product of collective agency via Socratic rhetoric.

Travelers (literal and figurative) in these circumstances survive through communication. Humans as a species excel at this. Humans as societies and cultures have thus far failed miserably. Repeatedly. But they're improving.

^This whole mess is summarized by this:

Friend of THD's - "i also think it is silly to assert some final rule about what counts as legitimate justification and apply it to all groups present and future in all contexts"

Consensus is a phenomenon that exists at multiple levels of organization; multiple scales that can, will, and do differ from their peers. Such is the nature of panarchy (with a P ffs, people. Get it right. )

In summary, it's perfectly fine to make any available choice; war, genocide, prostitution, robbery, taxation, etc., so long as one holistically understands its impact on the system at large. Realistically, this level of omniscience is impossible, thus one must endeavor to actively consider the impact of their every action and reaction if they are to get ahead.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

(If this continues I'll split it. Again. )

 

[Thurlor]

@ Hawkeye

I'm not exactly sure but I take it you are against humans altering the Earth's environment or speeding up a natural process that alters the environment. If this is not the case please disregard the following.

If it is 'bad' for humans to alter their environment what about other organisms?
- Elephants have deforested huge tracts of Africa
- Early organisms altered the Earth's environment to be a reducing one

Should these be rectified? If not why not? Is there something fundamentally different when a human alters it's environment (willfully or otherwise)?

These are some of the reasons why I find it difficult to decide where I stand on climate change.

 

[Grayman]

@ Hawkeye

I'm not exactly sure but I take it you are against humans altering the Earth's environment or speeding up a natural process that alters the environment. If this is not the case please disregard the following.

If it is 'bad' for humans to alter their environment what about other organisms?
- Elephants have deforested huge tracts of Africa
- Early organisms altered the Earth's environment to be a reducing one

Should these be rectified? If not why not? Is there something fundamentally different when a human alters it's environment (willfully or otherwise)?

These are some of the reasons why I find it difficult to decide where I stand on climate change.

Yes he is.


The issue is the rate at which technology has evolved. Tech evolves at a rate that is much greater than biology. The tech we created is moving so fast the biological elements of the earth cannot adapt or change fast enough to survive. We have to be aware and careful that we build the tech to not expect the environment to adapt to the tech but instead the other way around.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

@Thurlor

It really isn't "ZOMG all change is bad," it's the amount of change over a given time span. Modern industrialized man (MIM) arose from a certain group of relatively stable environmental conditions; climate, precipitation patterns, ocean currents, soil nutrient quality, populations of very specific crops and livestock, underground caches of crude oil, reliable fisheries, etc. In a sense, MIM has only ever known these conditions, and relies upon them to exist. This dependence is very strong. Unbelievably strong.

When the integrity of these things is threatened, we are also threatened. So the general idea to compensate for this is to protect their integrity; not so that conditions remain as they are forever, but to allow technology to catch up.

Slow change is very good for us hairless apes. Fast change... really, really sucks if we can't adapt to it.

 

[Thurlor]

@ Grayman

Is technology advancing too fast? Too what would we compare it?

Tech evolves at a rate that is much greater than biology.

This isn't always the case though. Maybe for large species with a slow reproductive rate or geology. Look at the constant struggle humanity has with diseases for the simple reason they change so fast.

I understand what you are saying but I think the bigger issue is with human nature. It's not the tech or how fast it develops, it's what we decide to do with it. Consider the impact that the inhabitants of Easter Island had on their environment with only simple low tech tools. Another example would be the deforestation of the Ancient Middle East (The epic of Gilgamesh).

Ultimately it is that we (humanity) haven't developed fast enough to cope with our new-found powers.

 

[Grayman]

Ultimately it is that we (humanity) has developed fast enough to cope with our new-found powers.

I suppose there is a lot of truth in what you said.


Is this statement correct as stated? Seems like it should say we have not developed fast enough to handle our new-found powers. I don't know. Seems like we just create a problem with every solution, but that is life.

 

[Thurlor]

@ THD

Are we only interested in environmental change when it negatively impacts on humanity or are we worried about it for the destruction it causes to nature?
I wonder how many environmentalists wouldn't give a damn if humans weren't effected. Would the fate of an alien eco-system be of concern?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Tech = Lynx, Biology = Hare

 

[Thurlor]

@ Grayman

Sorry, that should have been 'haven't'.

Corrected

 

[Thurlor]

@ THD

So you are claiming the relationship of technology to biology is one of predator and prey?

Or is it just an illustration of how biology can't keep up? If so, the lynx (tech) is always behind the hare (biology) in numbers. It's existence is dependent on the hare.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

@ THD

Are we only interested in environmental change when it negatively impacts on humanity or are we worried about it for the destruction it causes to nature?
I wonder how many environmentalists wouldn't give a damn if humans weren't effected. Would the fate of an alien eco-system be of concern?

We're mainly concerned with negative impacts on humanity, but we also can't ignore the fact that damage to nature also negatively impacts humanity. We are a part of nature. Inextricably linked.

Stephen Kellert has actually this extensively and published many a journal article on the subject. Those who fit this description make up ~10-30% of the population (depending on country) and are deemed to hold a "moralistic" and/or "humanistic" attitude towards wildlife.

Concern over the fate of an alien ecosystem will depend on who you ask. Most moralists and humanists would care to some degree, but this is also diluted because alien ecosystems are far more intangible, so maybe ~5-10% max. This value increases (among others who hold different attitudes, such as utilitarians, scientists, ecologists, aestheticists, etc) if this alien ecosystem is viewed as potentially habitable by man in the future.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I don't doubt your expertise, however, there's a key difference in terms of belief validity. Economics, especially the austrian school (but really... the large majority of economics), is devoid of empirical data when it comes to describing reality. Observations? Yup. Case studies? Yup. Micro-scale controlled experiments? Some; it depends on the aspect/component as some are more testable than others. Macro-scale controlled experiments? No, and I will hammer this point forever.

Economics is the dismal science. It is not like the hard sciences such as chemistry and physics. Controlled experiments are very hard to conduct. This does not mean controlled experiments don't exist. I posit that the game Eve Online is a brilliant controlled experiment. It replicates many aspects of market economy. When I was playing the market in that game, I was crunching the numbers on price responses to changes in supply of a good and demand for the good. It was interesting stuff.

A colleague of mine was conducting energy market price modelling and asked for some analytical assistance. I was looking at a great deal of data which reiterated the validity of the economic laws such as the law of supply a demand. The laws of supply and demand, this phenomena, has been observed for eons. I have read works from the 11th century (translated from Latin) highlighting observations of the phenomena. I listened to lectures and read publications which reference similar works dating back as far as 500BC.

The Austrian School uses the rationalist method to develop a model about how the economy works. The reason why they do is that you can discover truths about reality by using known truths (axioms) and engaging in ratiocination. The validity of the model is how well it coincides with reality. The reason why I think the model is valid is because it coincides with my observations (data driven and anecdotal) of reality and I believe their arguments are rational and correct.

Now, certain individuals are conducting data driven research in macro-economics such as the economist Steven Keen. There have been a great many theses have been published on empirical analysis of Austrian Business Cycle theory. The first academic papers on empirical analysis of the Austrian Business Cycle theory date back to the 1940s.

---

I think thermoeconomics is a terrible idea because it divorces prices from the subject valuations of individuals i.e. the removal of the laws of supply and demand. It will run into the economic calculation problem.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

@ THD

So you are claiming the relationship of technology to biology is one of predator and prey?

Or is it just an illustration of how biology can't keep up? If so, the lynx (tech) is always behind the hare (biology) in numbers. It's existence is dependent on the hare.

Both. Technology "feeds" on resources/biology, which in turn spawns more technology.

Oil as an example: Drilling and extraction methods continue to become more and more efficient, depleting the supply. Because of this supply decrease, the price increases, which provides incentive to further develop drilling and extraction technology. This process continues. Eventually most of the worlds oil reserves have been tapped and harvested, at which point the "technology population" is at peak and the "oil population" is depleted. Oil technology then collapses, having very little left to feed upon. If sufficient time has elapsed while oil was being harvested, populations or alternative resources are able to be identified, and technology to harvest that resource can then be developed to continue the cycle.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

<-Will respond to Proxy after he sleeps. Maybe in 14-16 hours.

 

[Hawkeye]

It certainly was the case.

This thread contains evidence to the contrary. Unless you can prove otherwise, your comment is inaccurate and void.

Third world countries do have pollution issues in comparison to affluent nations. Affluent nations are able to afford proper waste management.

I never disputed that they didn't.

In my research of what countries are most polluted (not pollute the most)...

*COUGH* Bullshizzle! *COUGH*

I tried to look up some rankings of which countries pollute the most but I ran into a problem.

The problem you found being:

...they biased their rankings based on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

How does it bias the rankings? Where's your evidence?

Are you saying that greenhouse gasses like CO2 have no effect on climate change at all? Or are you saying because it isn't something like a used tire in someone's backyard filled with stagnant waste water, that it isn't an issue for concern?

This is a separate issue from nations which pollute the most. By mass, I can easily imagine a country like the US polluting more than Cambodia. The US produces more waste.

I said this on the first page... There is a difference between most polluted and most polluting and stated that the latter was a bigger issue in terms of global pollution. If you're suddenly agreeing with me, why did you initially choose to be an ass-hat about it instead?

Rather than saying "Oh yeah, it's not third world countries that pollute the most", you accused me of claiming anything and everything to be a pollutant including money without elaborating on the matter. This was after you agreed with my definition of pollution and so I can't for the life of me understand how you can state such a bogus claim. I've even expanded my meaning and you've still not elaborated why I think anything and everything is a pollutant.

Finally.

Saying you're a highly educated and capable person with a degree means very little (probably more so to me regarding education). I've been studying in post-compulsory education for 11.5 years which includes 3 degrees, one of which is postgraduate; you don't hear me telling everyone how educated I am do you?

One shouldn't rate people on the pieces of paper they have; it is not that difficult to get a degree. I am living proof.

I'm missing the connection between global 'warming' and iceage.

Global Warming means hotter summers, colder winters, and bigger storms. It can trigger an ice age by disrupting ocean currents like the Gulf Stream.

The Day after Tomorrow for example contains a lot of snow, yet the plot is about Global Warming.

@ Hawkeye

I'm not exactly sure but I take it you are against humans altering the Earth's environment or speeding up a natural process that alters the environment.

If this is not the case please disregard the following.

If it is 'bad' for humans to alter their environment what about other organisms?
- Elephants have deforested huge tracts of Africa
- Early organisms altered the Earth's environment to be a reducing one

Should these be rectified? If not why not? Is there something fundamentally different when a human alters it's environment (willfully or otherwise)?

These are some of the reasons why I find it difficult to decide where I stand on climate change.

Like others have said, it is more to do with the rate at which we are altering it. Currently, we are changing it faster than we are prepared for.

Sure, we're not the only creatures that pollute; however, humans are the most environmentally destructive species on the planet. We've destroyed and polluted more landmass, oceans and atmosphere than any other species by a significant amount.

I suppose the greatest difference is that we understand pollution and its consequences, unlike other creatures.

 

[Grayman]

I think I have agreed or at least accepted most of what you have said so far but I don't think the excessive temperature fluxes will occur from this. If anything, the blanket will stabilize the temperature although hotter.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think I have agreed or at least accepted most of what you have said so far but I don't think the excessive temperature fluxes will occur from this. If anything, the blanket will stabilize the temperature although hotter.

I sure hope you're right; however, it's not something I'd like to prove using the planet as a case study just in-case you aren't. ^^

 

[Thurlor]

Everyone is talking about what to do to save the environment because environmental change would cause human suffering and impact on human life styles (which I don't deny).

My issue is that the ultimate reason (human well-being) is being held in a greater regard than the damage to environments (not necessarily environmental change). I'm not saying we shouldn't value human well-being, but if that is all we care about than I can easily envision a situation in which we pursue it in disregard to any environmental damage we cause.

I feel I must point out that I don't really care about environmental change in regards to geology and non-living systems except where such changes effect living systems. My concerns lie with the killing of individual 'feeling' animals and the extinction of any species (except for diseases and parasites maybe).

 

[Hawkeye]

Everyone is talking about what to do to save the environment because environmental change would cause human suffering and impact on human life styles (which I don't deny).

My issue is that the ultimate reason (human well-being) is being held in a greater regard than the damage to environments (not necessarily environmental change). I'm not saying we shouldn't value human well-being, but if that is all we care about than I can easily envision a situation in which we pursue it in disregard to any environmental damage we cause.

I feel I must point out that I don't really care about environmental change in regards to geology and non-living systems except where such changes effect living systems. My concerns lie with the killing of individual 'feeling' animals and the extinction of any species (except for diseases and parasites maybe).

I totally agree.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This thread contains evidence to the contrary. Unless you can prove otherwise, your comment is inaccurate and void.

Ok, sure. I can do that:

Overfishing? If it exists, it can be solved by limited property rights over regions of the ocean.

Overgrazing? Can be solved by property rights.

*COUGH* Bullshizzle! *COUGH*

You're not a particularly a pleasant individual to have a conversation with.

How does it bias the rankings? Where's your evidence?

Are you saying that greenhouse gasses like CO2 have no effect on climate change at all? Or are you saying because it isn't something like a used tire in someone's backyard filled with stagnant waste water, that it isn't an issue for concern?

I never said CO2 had no affect on the climate. Its affect on the climate does not automatically make it a pollutant. As for a debate, many other individuals than myself were willing to have a debate. I merely wanted to know why OP thought there would be environmental destruction. Due to your collective actions this thread became out of hand.

I said this on the first page... There is a difference between most polluted and most polluting and stated that the latter was a bigger issue in terms of global pollution. If you're suddenly agreeing with me, why did you initially choose to be an ass-hat about it instead?

You were being an ass-hat. You know? When you're not acting cordially, the other person does not need to follow the norm of being cordial as well. If you're polite and cordial, people will be polite and cordial back.

Rather than saying "Oh yeah, it's not third world countries that pollute the most", you accused me of claiming anything and everything to be a pollutant including money without elaborating on the matter. This was after you agreed with my definition of pollution and so I can't for the life of me understand how you can state such a bogus claim. I've even expanded my meaning and you've still not elaborated why I think anything and everything is a pollutant.

I think you're probably one of those people. It is just the way I feel about you. Not particularly pleasant to talk to, hubris, anger, etc. Very similar to the individuals I met protesting an oil company trying to give paid internships to engineering students.

Saying you're a highly educated and capable person with a degree means very little (probably more so to me regarding education). I've been studying in post-compulsory education for 11.5 years which includes 3 degrees, one of which is postgraduate; you don't hear me telling everyone how educated I am do you?

One shouldn't rate people on the pieces of paper they have; it is not that difficult to get a degree. I am living proof.

11.5 years at university? May god have mercy on your soul. I feel a great deal of sympathy for you.

You misunderstand the reason why I mentioned credentials. You're buddies were claiming that I was ignorant; lacking knowledge. I mentioned academic and work credentials, particularly the civil engineering majoring in the environment bachelors degree, for them to infer that I have specifically studied and worked (~6 months) in the area of pollution minimization, mitigation, process, treatment and disposal. It was interesting stuff but not where my heart is. I prefer mathematical modelling and computer science.

I am sure that all of us don't want to spend our free time being angry at people on the internet. Can you now leave this thread behind us and take my offer to treat each other in a cordial manner and with some level of respect? Can we start again?

 

[Hawkeye]

With those responses you should become a politician. ^^

Your comment about me treating anything and everything as pollution started this. Failing to elaborate on it, escalated the matter. Amazingly, you still haven't expanded on what you meant with any justification. Will Proxy ever do this? Probably not, but watch this space!

I'm not angry, I find it quite amusing how instead of answering my questions, you're attempting to say what kind of person I am.

Spoiler

As you have awarded me the position of Forum Grammarian in the past, I have to inform you that it's "effect" and not "affect".

If this rustles your Jimmies, just take a step back and remember the words written in my signature

I'm quite happy to move on if people are bored, or feel it is taking over the thread.

 

[Grayman]

I sure hope you're right; however, it's not something I'd like to prove using the planet as a case study just in-case you aren't. ^^

Sadly, I must admit. My curiosity has no bounds and often leads to destruction. I have had to replace many of my items and have burdened a few relationships with such a destructive force. I have never destroyed a world before, but there is a first time for everything.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

As you have awarded me the position of Forum Grammarian in the past, I have to inform you that it's "effect" and not "affect".

Yes, you're correct.

 

[Hawkeye]

Sadly, I must admit. My curiosity has no bounds and often leads to destruction. I have had to replace many of my items and have burdened a few relationships with such a destructive force. I have never destroyed a world before, but there is a first time for everything.

How about Mars?
If it works, you could terraform the planet; if it doesn't, no harm done.