Slashdot Mirror
IPCC Climate Change Report Calls For Urgent Action To Phase Out Fossil Fuels (bbc.com)
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a report that says global temperatures are heading towards 3 degrees C, and that the original goal of keeping the rise under 1.5 degrees C will require "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society." While the window of opportunity is not yet closed, the prospect looks unlikely and hugely expensive. BBC reports: The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards. Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and and clear. "The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to 2 degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who is a co-chair of the IPCC. "The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C -- changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have." The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable. Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades. Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever! In order to get to 1.5C, the report says the following will be necessary: Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030; Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050; Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero; Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia); and Global net zero emissions by 2050. As if this wasn't demanding enough, the report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.
If the planet reaches 2C of warming, coral reefs would be almost entirely wiped out and global sea-levels will rise around 10 centimeters more. "There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat," reports The Guardian.
Further reading: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have." The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below 2 degrees this century then the changes we would experience would be manageable. Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years in 2030. We can stay below it but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals, plus we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, around 2.5% of global GDP, for two decades. Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground. Forever! In order to get to 1.5C, the report says the following will be necessary: Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030; Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050; Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero; Up to 7 million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of Australia); and Global net zero emissions by 2050. As if this wasn't demanding enough, the report says that to limit warming to 1.5C, it will involve "annual average investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.
If the planet reaches 2C of warming, coral reefs would be almost entirely wiped out and global sea-levels will rise around 10 centimeters more. "There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops like rice, maize and wheat," reports The Guardian.
Further reading: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.
I'm goinga build an ark
I'd finish your wall first, Don.
(Opens window and sticks hand outside)
Yeah, sounds about right.
"Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
y'know... the planet doesn't care if humans are on it or not. if we're all dead (cooked, starved, killed in food riots), the planet will be peaceful and recover from our cancerous pathological behaviour, soon enough. Agent Smith: "you humans are like a plague. a disease. and we? we... are the cure..."
the world is run by corporations, not people. corporations are run by shareholders. a large part of the stock game is run by algorithms calculating and trading stocks for maximum efficiency. that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet.
Cue obligatory XKCD on climate, in another probably vain attempt to educate the dunderheads:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Solar Reserve have some great low externality base load solar power stations. The heat is stored in molten salt and is available when the sun goes down. Base load solar plant like this can be scaled up, I have no affiliation with them however I find their technology interesting.
Coupled with domestic, industrial and commercial P.V there is enough energy in the sun to build power infrastructure. Combined with the terawatts of power available with wind and geothermal does anyone think the oil and coal industry want this technology to be developed and advanced?
I reason that any form of massive dynamic grid will need a lot of intelligence to make the power available where it is needed, which means interesting technological avenues to explore, a massive explosion of information technology and, fortunes to be made as the economy changes. If we can overcome the economic inertia.
None of the criticisms of these technologies ever ask what it would take to build such infrastructures and all of the technologies look like they scale well. We know we can't continue the way we are going because we will die. This is not just about the planet - Save the Humans, the planet will be just fine.
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths who actually want such an outcome, otherwise it would be done already. The excuses are less and less believable every day.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
But, but, then how will we fuel our self-driving flying cars?
Murphy strikes yet again!
While the US federal government has a distinct lack of political will change pollution, it is still possible for states to take action that will have a wide effect.
For example, a state could require an environmental tax on all products (including imports) that are equivalent to the cost the remove the pollution expelled in the production (or use) of the product. They could then use that money to fun CO2 capture systems. Naturally, you would want to ramp this up over a few years as to reduce the economic impact. While the demands of a single state would have a small impact, it would provide the political cover for other states to join in.
This would soon bankrupt coal power plants and quickly point power companies toward ramping up environmentally friendly power sources lest competition take their profits. So if some state politicians can just grow a pair and do this then we'll be on our way to environmental recovery.
Good progress is made by the brave, not the cowards who only think of themselves.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So they recommend people to use trains, fly less and use video conferencing. When they all flew to South Korea for their conference..
"All animals are equal, and some animals are more equal than the others."
Speaking as a Canadian, a 10C increase would be quite nice(even tolerable in summer)... If we could hold back the climate refugees ;p
Simply put, if you don't put this in terms of monetary impact to those involved (politicians, government) then you're going to get ignored.
There's nothing better than saying: If you do nothing, then your land with factory/plant X is going to be full of water and unusable - this means your businesses in that area (which probably lobby you) won't exist, and it'll cost this much to move them if you do nothing. Over time, this will multiply and become hugely expensive, certainly more expensive than doing something about it and limiting emissions (etc other stuff in report to mitigate warming)
Facts mean little to politicians. I thought people knew this already?
If such a person existed, he/she could organize a grand climate Panmunjom.
The right would have to admit that the greenhouse mechanism is plausible and that current data shows warming. There may be disagreement about exactly how much there is and at what point 'weather' becomes 'climate,' but it's out there, and growing.
The left would have to allow us to use all carbon-free technologies in addressing the problem, rather than just the ones that are tiny and cute. In the real world, we still need energy-usinh big cities and heavy industries.
"ACT NOW IDIOTS" is indeed the most appropriate language for the stupids.
But... is it?
Is it ACTUALLY more expensive to not do anything? Certainly, morally, but in terms of actual solutions and their efficacy and the knock-on effects and the cost of implementations - the data is actually thin on the ground.
The Paris agreement is an example. Even if we all stuck to it, these same research bodies are now saying it's not enough.
If the cost of not-drowing-in-Waterworld is to actually make many modern conveniences so expensive and unobtainable, have we "won"? Is that "better"? Is people aren't being flooded out of the coastal regions, but nobody can afford their electricity bill, or medicines and oils and products and shipping is suddenly twice as expensive?
Everyone's done the "cost analysis" of not doing something. Nobody has (realistically) done the cost analysis of actually doing something that might work - or even really suggested what that is.
It's a huge bugbear to me. The solutions are half-assed casual suggestions ("release less CO2", "stop burning oil"), etc. but the COST of doing so is not just a number on a balance sheet. More old people will die in winter, more things we take for granted won't be practical, and the associated error-bars are HUGE because we just don't know what's going to happen.
I'm perfectly happy to trust in science and saying yes, this is happening, it's bad, it's caused by us. Let's take that as an "assumption" to work from even if you don't personally believe it.
Now what? What do we do that fixes it? We stop burning coal. Okay, what would that affect? To my knowledge only one country in the world is coal-free on any regular basis (Germany?), and that's still one of the countries most reliant on coal overall. It's ALWAYS fossil fuels. Then nuclear. Then biomass (trees!). Then all the other "renewable" sources.
So just a simple statement as "don't burn coal" drastically affects the economy and energy production of every country on the planet. That's going to knock into heating, cooling and industry before anything else. Which is going to kill people (even if only the elderly) and make everything more expensive.
And that's just one item. Taken together, do the effects of "let's just burn everything, ramp up energy and use that resource to find a better solution" actually kill less or more people over the next 100 years? We don't know. Few ever study the "other side" of the coin.
The problem with this kind of thing, which I wholeheartedly believe is conveying a necessary message, is that the message boils down to "DO THIS OR DIE!" and then someone in the crowd says "But... if we do that... do we not die anyway? Just in a different way, while destroying industry and society and causing more damage long-term?" And nobody has even the decency to look sheepish or say "Well, no, actually we looked and it wouldn't hurt at all if we did X instead".
The research into that side might exist, but it's certainly not being advertised and not being made popular and almost certainly not being done as rigorously or as seriously as the scaremongering.
I'd honestly like to know - if we do EVERYTHING - if we all get unanimous worldwide co-operation and overnight we all become vegans who wash their clothes on rocks, solar-power the entire world, never burn so much as a match again, pump all our energy resources into reversing the CO2 increase, recycle every plastic bag in every landfill in the planet, etc. etc. etc. - whatever loony ideas we can come up with - will that *actually* make it better than the alternative? Because I see drastically little evidence that way. I know we all say "it's there, it's what the scientists say"... but as I consider myself a scientist, I can't honestly look and say "I must recommend this path, or indeed ANY path, out of this mess, because it will be better than the thing we think might happen if we don't".
Everyone acknowledges the problem. The solution eludes us. And the cost-benefit analysis of any dream we can imagine is really "Er... dunno... probably not" at best.
Stop flying around the world for stupid fucking holidays
Go well
Think I'm exaggerating? Australia just recently gave up on its effort to meet its Paris climate agreement carbon reduction targets.
Lots of folks gonna' be packing up and moving to escape rising seas and suffocating heat (e.g., S. Arizona).
i wouldn't want to be in an ark in a hurricane
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
That's a very US-centric view. In the EU, for example, we have considerably more control over corporations. See our environmental and privacy protections, for example. We also tend to have more limits on the funding of political parties and the amount they can spend, which really helps keep things from getting as bad as the US.
Having said that, even in the US the corporations don't have total control. Look at emission limits on cars, surely if big oil and car manufacturers were running things those wouldn't exist.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I have a cousin who works as an enviromental consultant - helps small companies reduce their carbon footprint. But every year she takes at least 2 long haul holidays with her bf, usually to the far east. But wait, thats ok according to her - because once they get their they don't hire a car but cycle around! No, I'm not making this shit up. And yes, she's a millenial.
"that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet"
Are you sure about that? Exactly how much of a profit do you think the algorithm calculates anyone making if everyone is dead? I'm sorry, this is just intellectual laziness on display here. We get it - you don't like corporations - but can you at least try to stop that from leading you into spouting nonsense?
-- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
STFU.
mr burns nuclear will help you change coal to nuke
Not doing anything is not a long term option, because the fossil fuels will run out, or become too expensive to exploit.
The question is not if we should move away from fossil fuels, but when.
Spin a giant fresnel lens (or simply a diffuser) at L1 to shade the earth, like was already suggested in 2004 by Gregory Benford. He said you could use plastic, but I have my doubts that would survive very long. Aluminium oxide maybe? L1 delta v isn't much higher than LEO, so with SpaceX costs this should be doable for 10s of billions in lift cost.
A fraction of the opportunity cost of destroying the global economy and triggering WW3.
Heard this all before. People at the top of society telling the unwashed masses what to do.
They Say -- Stop building urban centers immediately and move out to the farm and regain the roots of your civilization.
They Say -- The intellectuals dont like it, cast them into reeducation camps until they get understand our logic is better than their logic. They Say -- Destroy the competitive assets in your economy and place your faith in government.
They Say -- There was a less impactful way to generate power but it generated a minuscule amount of waste that can be made into a glass and rendered inert until harnless.
They Politic things like solar and wind power that are price competitive in some unique locations, but make everyone believe they need solar roots and banks of batteries.
They Say -- Ask why we cannot all be like the good folks who can power their tiny house, no kids, no AC mind you, with an overactive hamster and a birthday candle. They do not mind washing their pot funk clothes they wear on a rock next to the river.
Sorry have seen this all before.
Or We as individuals could use the most cost efficent solutiion at the time seeing that Solar and Wind will cut this generations carbon footprint by 40% and be cheaper. Put a resonable amount of research dollars towards safter fission lifecycle and make it a priorty to not to fly when a teleconfrence and a powerpoint could do for a work meeting.
Not one of these groups comes out...ever... and says the human race as a collective has done a preaty good job going from the steam age, the age of steel to the age of data networks. The VPN and the laptop have save more carbon emmissions and traffic jams than any other technology deployed in the first world. No more is a middle manager driving a 3 ton car into the urban center so you can answer a phone in a cube.
As robots take over transportation and delivering food to our pieholes the overall need for velocity of mass of products will slow and the enegy expended drops.
Nobody who wants power can come out and say a resonably good society is forming without much goverment input on a lot of fronts.
You're correct that typically trading algorithms do not explicitly factor in climate change. Liquidity provision algorithms or short term statistical arbitrage algorithms are largely indifferent. However if there is a large enough financial penalty for impacting the environment or climate change, then this data feeds into fundamentals models, and would be traded on. Trend models would then pick up on this as should discretionary traders.
Thank god the world greatest environmentalist al gore is paying for carbon offsets for his 24000 sq ft home. That will help.
Is this temperature graph showing the temperature data before or after NOAA's retroactive 'corrections' to the temperature record? It's curious that all the corrections make historical temperatures colder and recent temperatures warmer. Almost as if they needed to fudge the data so that the 'global warming crisis' wouldn't fizzle out in the face of lack of evidence.
LOL, Germany? You mean the country that shut down its nuclear power plants for "safety" reasons only to have them replaced with coal power plants?
You only need to stay in the middle of the hurricane, there is plenty of room there. The eye of the hurricane is pretty comfy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Long haul flight is basically around 2 kg fuel per seat for every 100km. For a long haul like , say, 8000 km that is about 160 Kg fuel time 2 for return that's 320 Kg fuel or 640 Kg per two persons. Compare that for average fuel consumption car is 9 kg per 100 Km. Let us say 10. So the distance corresponding is 6400 km of car, or about 8000 miles. Somebody doing 8 mils of commuting every day will have done that in 4 month. That is also by the way the same consumption as somebody doing their holiday in car, so barring you going only 20 miles away for holiday, you'll consume as much. And in the grand scheme of thing, that will probably be nothing compared to the carbon footprint reduction for most company. So you can take your millennial joke , and shove it (I am much older than a millennial but I can't appreciate people which use that as a cheap shot).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Not doing anything is not a long term option, because the fossil fuels will run out, or become too expensive to exploit.
The question is not if we should move away from fossil fuels, but when.
That's easy. Society will move away from fossil fuels when there is a better option.
"Better" means cheaper, more efficient, readily available, suitable for purpose, etc.
Typo in doing the division.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
They've been saying stuff like that for years and it never comes true. We humans are a genious bunch when it comes to survival. What scientist need to do is find an economic solution to the problem. What really is an affordable, acceptable solution? So far all we've heard is either limit reproduction severely (a la China's one child policy - that worked out great) or kill people en masse/let yourself be killed. The other alternatives are mass production of inobtainium and going back to a pre-industrial era - that was a great time too and plays right into the "let's all die en masse".
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
That and every potential solutions or effort gets attacked by eco warriors pointing out it will hurt this or that. I pointed out a mass scale sequestoring solution and someone argued it would impact high altitude species by lowering the temperatures at high altitude. Was someone under the impression there were answers to this that don't break some eggs? We might just have to come to terms with bigger snow caps on mountains it certainly impacts less than destroying the oceans.
I agree 100%.
So what do you suggest? That we tax fossil fuel use to oblivion or stop it entirely.
Let's assume that we can go *snap* and all the fossil fuels are locked away from us and can't be touched for 100 years.
Now what? What do we do? What's the impact of that? How many people die of starvation or hypothermia while we sort it out? How long will the plans take to implement? What's the most practical replacement (NUCLEAR, don't argue otherwise)? How much do we need to ramp that up (double, maybe triple current usage)? How long will that take? What suffers in the meantime? How long will that last us? How much MORE / LESS CO2 will that generate than coal? Because... if it doesn't make bills much, much more expensive (fuel poverty deaths) then it may make them much, much cheaper (hell, let's just leave the air-con / heating on 24/7, we can afford it!)?
So... where's the analysis of that situation? Where's the suggestion? What's the timescale (it'll take longer than 30 years to replace every coal plant on the planet with nuclear and in some places we may not even allow that to happen politically!)? How many suffer because of that plan (a non-zero number)? And what impact will that have on actually stopping/reversing/undoing the CO2 emissions as they stand (because those three are VERY different things)?
What if doing that, worldwide, instantly, costs trillions, double energy prices, makes plastics unaffordable, holds off CO2 rises for 10 years, and then the levels continue to increase anyway? Was it worth doing? Honestly can we say that with any certainty?
No, that would be a Permian–Triassic extinction event, which was 8 degrees higher.
Literally the CO2 in the sea, chokes everything in the sea, it dies, decays,, sulphur fills the air, land animals die, 98% species wipeout. Everyone dead.
That's easy. Society will move away from fossil fuels when there is a better option.
I wouldn't be so sure. Switching will take huge investments, not just in money but also in energy. If you wait until fossil fuels are more expensive, then switching also becomes more expensive.
It is entirely possible for a society to wait so long that they can no longer afford to switch.
If the cost of not-drowing-in-Waterworld is to actually make many modern conveniences so expensive and unobtainable
It's not.
In fact it's probably cheaper overall, it's just that there are a lot of powerful people opposed to the re-balancing because they lose out.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
How fast do you think glaciers move?
So what do you suggest? That we tax fossil fuel use to oblivion or stop it entirely.
I suggest that we gradually phase out fossil fuels, starting in 1980. Take 30 years to do first half, and then another 30 years to do the second half. Increasing taxation sounds like a reasonable plan to make the market do the work in an efficient manner.
Let's assume that we can go *snap* and all the fossil fuels are locked away from us and can't be touched for 100 years.
That's the current plan. Keep using fossil fuels until they are too expensive, and then go *snap*. Where's your analysis of that situation ?
The stupid EU keeps emitting more and more carbon. They aren't doing anything, but pointing fingers: https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Yeah, and you also suppress speech, political parties, and imprison people for saying mean words, and ignore criminality committed by particular racial/ethnic groups. It's sure working out well. But let's be realistic, because those limits on the funding of political parties work out about as well as nothing. See the most recent bit where several left wing parties, in various EU countries which held power loosened fundraising rules in order to get more money from corporate donors, then re-tightened the rules after public outcry...and the fact they were about to lose the election.
Look at emission limits on cars, surely if big oil and car manufacturers were running things those wouldn't exist.
Possibly, but that hasn't happened. Yet we can see the "allowances" given to cities and businesses because they allow a financial trade off into the government coffers. Like dumping fresh water out of reservoirs during a drought, or allowing cities to dump raw sewage into rivers(by paying a fine) but causing downstream cities to halt intake because they can't treat it, or allow companies to overfish as long as they pay a fine on each catch in treaty violation. Looking at you EU, and your abuse of fishing treaties. Something that even China is doing a better job on.
Om, nomnomnom...
And the cost-benefit analysis of any dream we can imagine is really "Er... dunno... probably not" at best.
That depends on who is doing it. Some don't mind dramatic climate change where our way of life is completely changed or destroyed. They'll be on Elysium or something protected by their private military and private farms by their private potable water sources.
Others have examined their values and realize that they are just not compatible with a sustainable world. And most of my values were really programmed into me at a very early age; thrust upon me by marketers whose sole mission in life is to get me to consume mostly things that are completely unnecessary for my well-being or happiness.
And the changes that would be required of me personally, I have already done to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to build my own public transportation system and living in a Waffle House state, public transportation is considered "Socialist" or something and don't want to pay the taxes - but have no problem devoting a significant part of their disposable income on their car (paying higher taxes for public transport and dumping the car would actually leave more money in their pockets.)
In a nutshell, doing what we need to do to combat global warming is only a win. Aside from some adjusting to our lives, there is no downside.
That's easy. Society will move away from fossil fuels when there is a better option.
I wouldn't be so sure. Switching will take huge investments, not just in money but also in energy.
A better option takes migration issues into account. Few would buy LED light bulbs if they required new fixtures.
To a consumer electricity from a nuclear plant is identical to electricity from a coal plant.
But if other options cost twice as much and performed worse they wouldn't be 'Better'.
And the EU keeps increasing their carbon output, so I agree: https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Sadly the possibility of everyone being dead years from now is not considered by these algorithms. HFT bots don't consider what's going to happen beyond the next few seconds. Most companies don't look beyond the next few quarters - usually not beyond 1 quarter. Some industries like insurance look further ahead and are already taking global warming into account, but most don't.
Humanity is strapped to a machine that is indifferent to human suffering or ecological collapse and is dragging us toward catastrophe for our species and most of the life in the known universe.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Harsh reality time - The "goal" is is to reduce the human population (by design) to well under 500 million. All done with the support of the indoctrinated electorate.
Yes, the elite still need a permanent underclass to support their way of life.
You really didn't think it was about YOU did you? Perhaps you shouldn't have taken the Red Pill after all. Sorry if it caused discomfort.
Life is not for the lazy.
Hardly, and depending on context "the EU" isn't even one single entity. But none the less, there are things that the EU does better than the US, and vice versa. Discussing them and learning from each other is a good thing, no?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Because you looked at one year's data and ignored a decades long trend to make your point, that's why.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And shareholders are people. So you're saying that:
the world is not run by people
AND
the world is run by people
For what it's worth, if you have a 401k, it is very likely that YOU are a shareholder. It's utterly certain that I am a shareholder, in about a dozen companies, not counting 401k, IRA, and similar items that own shares....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This is the massive threat to humanity we've seen in sci-fi movies, usually represented by an invading alien species or some massive natural(ish) disaster, but in real life it was our own pollution that first posed a huge threat to us all.
And now we see how we react as a species to that threat. We didn't temporarily put aside our differences to work toward a common goal as fiction has often speculated. Instead most people kind of brushed the problem off and went back to focusing on the small-scale problems in their own lives, and a few people convinced themselves that the threat was made up and we'd all be fine. When we already had a good idea of how dangerous this threat was, those people elected a raging moron who shared their collectively suicidal beliefs to what was at the time the most powerful political office in the world.
The biggest threat to humanity is ourselves. Working to optimize our societies into what is effectively a perfect breeding ground for psychopaths over the last few hundred years (and especially over the last few decades) has been biting us in the ass the entire time and is about to finally rip out our throats.
I think our only hope is a millennial-driven political revolution - vote out every conservative everywhere across the globe, and put something between social democrats and democratic socialists in power so we can refocus our societies on benefiting as much of humanity as possible and defeat the incredibly short-sighted and largely detrimental business interests driving us to collective ruin.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Humanity is strapped to a machine that is indifferent to human suffering or ecological collapse and is dragging us toward catastrophe for our species and most of the life in the known universe.
A few years back I was at a meeting with an insurance company mahatma.
The figures are stunning, and if an insurance company is going to survive, they have to take the effects of AGW into account.
Or even if they don't believe in it - they have to take into account whatever is mimicking Sea Level Rise.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Actually, your story is a great example of why most people aren't really making an effort to change behaviors over climate change concerns. .... These things are relatively non-negotiable. Most of us only have so much income we can spend on things, and making more requires MORE energy usage. Maybe you start a service business as a side job or second job? Well, now you're traveling around to client sites in your spare time and running errands for needed supplies to do the work. With the high cost of such propositions as switching your vehicles to electric cars, it's out of financial reach for many people still.
At the end of the day, we need to use a lot of energy to accomplish the things in life we want to do. Everything from taking those trips to visit family or friends to the daily work commute needed to earn a paycheck
The biggest changes will only come about as the primary energy sources are converted over from burning fossil fuels. The power generation plants are actually doing this, but it's a very slow process that's (perhaps ironically) slowed down quite a bit by all the legal requirements for things like "environmental impact studies" - foisted upon the utility companies by the likes of Greenpeace. The main solution will probably be nuclear power - which is the toughest one to put online without a lot of resistance from environmental groups.
Honestly, I feel like I've almost over-extended myself already, financially, investing in some of these "Green" solutions. I put as many PV solar panels on my roof as the company could fit, using the most efficient ones per square foot available at the time. I traded in a Jeep and a sports car to get a used Tesla S. And I just took out a loan to do some home repairs that included ripping down the old siding and material behind it and replacing it with better insulated, modern materials. So hopefully, that cuts down on my winter heating bill and energy usage. So I'm going to sleep well at night that I've done my share. But realistically, all of this is a tiny drop in the bucket in the big picture -- even if it's a huge chunk of my total income.
But that aside I'm going to ask the same question I continue to ask - what is the correct temperature and who gets to decide?
It's a meaningless question. There is no "correct temperature". The real question is what temperatures are compatible with maintaining a complex global civilization? We've built this civilization on a certain temperature regime and changing temperatures are going to cause costly adaptation to the new regime. It's not clear yet just how costly that adaptation will be but chances are it's going to be a lot more than you seem to think.
CO2 cannot be responsible for the presented temperature increase because 1 molecule out of 2500 can't increase ambient temperature by that much,
Not that crap again. When a CO2 (or other GHG molecule) absorbs an infrared photon that added energy is quickly transferred to other non-GHG molecules in the atmosphere 99+% of the time. Eventually another infrared photon is emitted in a random direction so approximately half of them head back to the surface further warming it. Here's a quote I saved that explains it in more detail:
It is first necessary to understand that molecules are made up of atoms (with mass) are held together by bonds, much like two balls linked by springs, and therefore have ways of vibrating at specific frequencies.
The bonds between two atoms in a molecule are particularly strong, and can only vibrate at very high frequencies (emphasize frequencies over energies) well above the frequency of infrared or the solar radiation spectrum.
However, molecules with 3 or more atoms can vibrate by changing the angles between the three atoms, and they can vibrate at additional (lower) frequencies. Molecules like CO2 and H2O have vibrational frequencies within the infrared range. In these vibrations, the strong bonds between Carbon and Oxygen may still have very high vibrational frequencies, but the two Oxygen atoms can vibrate toward or away from each other at this lower frequency.
Molecules with more than 3 atoms can vibrate in even more ways (which means more and more frequencies). Examples are CH4, CFCs, etc.
When upward radiation close to the right frequency hits a CO2 molecule, it can excite the vibrational mode at that frequency. The outward radiation is reduced by the amount of energy that goes into the vibration. We see the reduced amount of outward radiation in the spectra observed by downward looking satellites.
[The observant student then might ask why the energy that goes into the vibration does not just get sent back out to space by emitting a photon – after all, if the same molecule gets hit over and over with photons won’t the vibrational energy increase and increase? There are two answers: the simple part is that yes, the energy can be re-emitted, but the direction of the emitted photons does not have to have the same upward angle. In fact, the extra energy will as likely go down as up. On average, only half of the incoming energy continues on an upward path, half heads back toward Earth to participate in the answer to question 3.
The second answer comes from equipartion of energy. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules. This kinetic energy is made up of not only the vibrational energy, but also the rotational energy and the classical kinetic energy of moving molecules.
When one molecule with high vibrational energy bumps into another molecule (even one without a vibrational mode) some of that vibration can go into kicking the other molecule into faster motion or higher rotation. So energy gets lost from the vibrational mode and transferred into the general temperature of the surrounding gas. The CO2 molecule has a unique way to absorb energy at a particular frequency, but that energy gets transferred very quickly to its neighboring molecules, most of which have no way to emit radiation at that frequency.
First, I view
The easy part is saying we need to do it, whatever IT is.
The largest polluters in the world are still ramping up as their economies rise and their governments have no real interest in this except as an economic weapon.
Then there is getting it down to the street.
Sure, the average person on the street would like to save the planet but is not willing to give up comforts like a large screen TV, large house with oil or gas heating,
The solutions put forward all have their gotcha's, solar and wind have heavy environmental impacts with the disposal of obsolete panels and blades.
Hybrid and electric cars have expensive and hard to dispose of batteries.
What to do?
You only need to stay in the middle of the hurricane, there is plenty of room there. The eye of the hurricane is pretty comfy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That works until the eye moves over land, which never happens right?
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Here are the official stats: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/...
As you can see, there is a consistent downward trend. In the last couple of years things have stalled a little as parts of Europe start high levels of growth after the financial crash. So really it was artificially low post 2010, and this is something of a correction. But still, the overall trend is down.
We are on track to meet our Paris commitments as long as we keep working at it. We need to go even further than Paris of course.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The EU has more control over the rights of people, and government of signatory states then the Federal government of the US, or Canada has on the control of states or provinces. Pretending that the EU by design isn't meant to force signatories into a "single state" is the reason why there has been such a big backlash against it.
Om, nomnomnom...
As an observer of this conversation, pointing out someone's snobbishness with, a highly-snobbish tone digs into the point you're trying to make.
Ok, so how about we stop subsidizing fossil fuel production and new fossil fuel sites and then let the market take it's course? Renewable energy sources would already be cost competitive if there wasn't such a giant imbalance in government subsidies.
The financial penalty for combating climate change is more immediate than the cost of letting it happen. So I suspect the algorithm will give people a pretty negative view on acting on climate change. Combating climate change is also very disruptive to existing markets which makes it hard to account for in existing financial models.
Think globally but act within local variable scope.
"My fear is if North Korea nukes us, Trump gonna get us into a war" - Maxine Waters
You realize she never said that, right? She said nothing even close - it's not an honest mistake or a misquote but just pure fabrication. I know it doesn't matter in this post-truth world but there are plenty of other cringe-worthy quotes available, so why go for a fake one?
Enigma
Please, please keep educating yourself about this:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ex...
The first link you have up there is for the US southeast which is a noisy outlier in temperature trends compared to the global climate. Southeast US trends are not representative of the world.
Those temperature adjustments made by NOAA are tiny compared to the scale of the temperature rise over the past 40 years (see link above). And they result in *less* cooling since 1900 instead of more.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Everyone acknowledges the problem. The solution eludes us.
Marine cloud brightening.
And the cost-benefit analysis of any dream we can imagine is really "Er... dunno... probably not" at best.
Ocean rise is currently the biggest economic impact, since so many people live on the coast. So keeping track of ocean levels is key.
You definitely make the best SJW type: a member of a formerly bloodthirsty colonizers who raped the planet for centuries, started two global wars, and now sits back on your ill gotten gains and judges others
You blame me for the sins of my forefathers and make sweeping generalizations, lumping me in with a group of 500,000,000 other people. And you accuse me of being an "SJW", a person who you define as unfairly apportioning blame and generalizing.
Let's just remind ourselves that you are going apeshit over a 1.8% increase one year compared to an overall 22% decrease since 1990. An increase that is not yet bucking the trend, or an indication that the trend will end, and at a time when most EU countries are pushing ahead with reducing emissions. And there is a good explanation as to why this is a temporary issue.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yeah, sure, whats the problem with someone using the same amount of fuel in 10 hours for recreation purposes that a driver would use in 4 months to commute to work? Pah, fuss about nothing, right?
Jesus, with people like you around no wonder we have a problem.
Stick to used cars, preferably ones that get good MPGs. Seriously. A huge fraction of a car's lifetime CO2 emissions comes from manufacturing the car, and newer cars don't emit a whole lot less CO2. Then get a used electric car with a good/new pack when that old car bites the dust.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
the world is run by corporations, not people.
Okay.
corporations are run by shareholders.
HahaHahahaha no. Corporations are run by crusty old white guys who have figured out how to game the system with golden parachutes, who are emplaced and protected by people who have figured out how to game the system by profiting from the failure of corporations rather than their success.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The IPCC's constant litany of Doom and Gloom, Last Chance, End of the World As We Know It, proclamations have come with such regularity that they are now simply background noise in the larger fight between those who believe in Complete Government Control and those who believe in Individual Freedom.
Their, "empirical" data isn't empirical at all, having been adjusted and interpolated time and again.
Their doomsday deadlines keep getting pushed back as each one passes without the world ending (much like any other Doomsday Cult).
Lastly, some scientists have actually admitted that the hyperbole is necessary so that they are heard.
Is anybody else sick of "the real world" and how most the time people using it are claiming their narrow perspective somehow has the definitive insight to the reality the masses do not? Sure, that is sometimes the case, especially with scientists and the educated because they actually have insight the ignorant masses do not.
POLITICS is an imaginary thing existing in human minds. It manifests into real world problems; but it is not real on the same level of the laws of physics; it's just emergent behavior. Like other animals; and like them, instinctive urges controls most of it.
The UN is a combination of reasoned highly educated thinking and politics. Quite often the political "realities" are better known and they try despite those; because one is real and the other is human social behavior.
The world could solve many problems extremely quickly if we were not a bunch of apes limited by our primitive nature; which we arrogantly and ironically dispel to protect our fragile egos.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Who gets to decided what the best temperature is? Or what the best rate of warming/cooling is?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Good description of the CO2 GHG effect. One molecule in 2500 can make a big difference. If folks want their mind blown they should consider that the ozone hole was caused by molecules with concentrations of a few in a trillion.
Just to support the IPCC predictions you mentioned:
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
They've actually been pretty quantitatively accurate since 1990 (in addition to qualitative).
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
And in the mean time, while you're both squabbling, yesterday China and India put out more carbon than the EU and the United States will in a year combined.
That is what was wrong with the Paris Accords.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Apparently you aren't very good at reading. I'm not being a snob at all. I am pointing out the fallacy of blaming and lecturing others from your rich perch. Europeans shouldn't be lecturing anyone on appropriate behavior.
My point is there needs to be a sufficient financial penalty imposed on corporations who contribute disproportionately to climate change if we want to change their behaviour. If screwing mother earth is profitable, and a viable option for investors, then of course that's what they'll do. It's no good, giving them this option and then acting disappointed if they exercise it. Lawmakers need to understand the beasts they are governing and how to influence them to get the results they want. Appeal to their wallets, not their morals. That is more in line with how they measure their performance.
Are you really trying to justify your position by saying "you are just as bad"? Ignoring the debate over if Europeans or whatever subset "Eurosnobs" refers to, is that really your intended justification.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
YES! How many generations now has this been a tired theme of fiction? Not just sci-fi... it's human nature; told by lies (fiction/art) to raise truths to consciousness. In modern times, we have an educated elite class of people instead of some random old wise man or mystical being. It's EASIER to relate and yet we are still just apes; because consciousness is fleeting and we just go back to autopilot with the next distraction. sad.
The REAL problem is psychology. Some idiot like Hitler (he wasn't taken seriously at first) can team up with a psychology nerd (Goebbels) and today event less talent is required; only money to apply the always improving science of training human animals. As a student in psychology, I think we've past the ability to self govern. A ruling elite can keep ahead of the curve if they properly manage their sheep... only a minority will realize they are being fleeced; the challenge is keeping those inline to prevent the herd from being spooked. Oh and have plenty of sheep dogs (kind of like wolves in sheep's clothing...to mix in more metaphors...)
Take Trump, he got the cows to leave the farmer who sacrificed a few and spooked them to run over to the butcher's feed lot. Many will be happy right up to the point where their head is strapped in and they realize the bolt gun is next... very few want to get out of line after seeing what happens at the end of it (this is for real how it goes BTW.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I don't see how this post relates to mine. Morals have nothing to do with systematic trading. I'm certainly not denying lives are at risk either. My post was to summarise to what extent policy could influence algorithms employed by quant funds.
If you want to discuss this from a moral perspective, then of course it's selfish for current generations to ignore these problems and leave future generations to suffer.
Please, stop that. It just feeds the trolls, and forces them to trot out their excuses.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Your average minimum wage Joe cannot afford any of the new high-tech cars. Now what's the solution for them?
To be on the receiving end of some sort of eugenics program. Lightly snuffed while being carbon neutral at the same time. I think the engineering details will be on the agenda of IPCC's next gala.
Funny thing about imprisoning people. Do you know which country has both the highest incarceration rate and the largest prison population (the latter actually higher than in the Soviet GULAGs)?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
All of the nations are trying to blame each other. China continues their MASSIVE expansion on coal plants. Not just replacement of old plants, but building all over the globe for their belt-trade idea. In addition, the MAJORITY of new coal plants in China are not replacements, but additions.
Then we have Europe, in which eastern Europe continues to say that they are exempt and continue to add. Germany kills off nukes and is replacing with coal.
Then we have America. America was headed in the right direction for the last 9 years. But now, we have trump.
Trump has been pushing coal, but thankfully, that has gone NOWHERE, other than increased sales to China ( who then resells to other nations in their belt/trade ).
And to be fair, his cutting the MPG on our fleet will actually HELP kill off new ICE sales. The reason is that EVs are cheaper to own than ICE.
Probably his one action that will make things worse in America is his allowing oil companies to ignore methane emissions from oil wells. I fear this action WILL increase America's methane emissions.
But, until all nations accept that NO MORE BUILDING ADDITIONAL FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS (and any replacement has to be by one that emits less CO2), then things will only get worse.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If the cost of not-drowing-in-Waterworld is to actually make many modern conveniences so expensive and unobtainable, have we "won"? Is that "better"?
Let's just say that it was. It isn't, we can simply pursue greater efficiency that's being let fall by the wayside because it's not the most profitable path, but just for the sake of argument let's say it is. How expensive do you think drowning-in-waterworld is going to be? I mean, let's just say that humanity is willing to move into a combination of underwater and floating cities. How much do you imagine that will cost? What will we have to give up to make that happen? Either we have to give up billions of people's lives because it will make it much cheaper to do that, or we will have to give up even more than we would to avoid that situation. The energy costs alone of building all of that infrastructure would dwarf our current consumption.
I'd honestly like to know - if we do EVERYTHING - if we all get unanimous worldwide co-operation and overnight we all become vegans who wash their clothes on rocks, solar-power the entire world, never burn so much as a match again, pump all our energy resources into reversing the CO2 increase, recycle every plastic bag in every landfill in the planet, etc. etc. etc. - whatever loony ideas we can come up with - will that *actually* make it better than the alternative?
We don't know, because it may well be too late. But if we don't address the problem, it will surely be bad, and "doing nothing" will cost us more than doing it now. It will cost us lifestyle, and/or it will cost us many lives.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Heard this all before. People at the top of society telling the unwashed masses what to do.
The people at the top of society, those who actually call the shots, are not spreading the message you claim they are spreading. Scientists are far from the top of society. They are not making the decisions. If they were, the world would be a very different place, probably a better one.
They Say -- Stop building urban centers immediately and move out to the farm and regain the roots of your civilization.
Who's saying that? It's actually more efficient for most people to live in cities, if the cities are designed such that the workers can live in them. Then they don't have to commute.
They Say -- The intellectuals dont like it, cast them into reeducation camps until they get understand our logic is better than their logic.
No, that's FUD you're spreading, not what the scientists are saying. The scientists are calling for rules and regulations that will lead to a change of behavior. On the other hand, the anti-science brigade (like the Trumpanistas) are actually, literally putting humans into camps. Children, no less.
They Say -- There was a less impactful way to generate power but it generated a minuscule amount of waste that can be made into a glass and rendered inert until harnless.
That was a lie. Nuclear fuel means strip mining and strip mining means contamination of water systems. They also said that it would be "too cheap to meter" and that was why it was worth producing the pollution, but that was also a lie. You can't justify nuclear power without lies.
They Say -- Ask why we cannot all be like the good folks who can power their tiny house, no kids, no AC mind you, with an overactive hamster and a birthday candle. They do not mind washing their pot funk clothes they wear on a rock next to the river.
If they have a river, sooner or later they implement hydro power. Lots of them have kids. Absent global warming, there are many places on this planet where you can live quite happily without AC. That number is dwindling, though, not just because temperatures are rising on average but because weather is becoming more chaotic as energy is added to what is already a chaotic system. That means more hot days in places where you didn't used to need AC.
Not one of these groups comes out...ever... and says the human race as a collective has done a preaty good job going from the steam age, the age of steel to the age of data networks.
By whose measurement? I think humanity has done a shit job of that. Every time we make a significant step forward in technology we have massive upset that we haven't bothered to try to mitigate because that would reduce profits for the already wealthy. Even the rate of technology could have been much faster, if not for rich pricks running corporations holding it back. For example, it is often estimated that Microsoft held computing back literally a decade with their anticompetitive business practices. How much further ahead could we be technologically if we didn't permit corporate interests to retard progress in order to protect their own profits? By any reasonable measurement, we are meandering fools.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So far all we've heard is either limit reproduction severely (a la China's one child policy - that worked out great) or kill people en masse/let yourself be killed.
That's bullshit. We've also heard "implement meritocracy", where those who have the best ideas are permitted to implement them instead of being stopped by wealthy interests who care only about how many yachts they will be able to buy this year and not about whether we get to continue as a species. We've also heard "improve education" since intelligent people naturally have less children. Stop this helplessness act at once and act like an adult, if you can manage it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nothing will ever be done to seriously combat global warming. Those in power are only concerned with the short term. If any politician goes in for the long term, then short term interests will attack them as being wasteful, costing us too much, jobs, etc etc. As seen from Dumpf et al, the masses are easy to fool with this rhetoric.
Two, those that contribute the most to warming are also those that have the money and resources to mostly comfortably ride things out, at least in the mid term before things get too bad.
Three, most people forget what the weather was like ten years ago, so have little basis on which to judge the climate. Also does anyone remember that the sky is supposed to be completely blue? I would say everyone under forty maybe has lived their whole life with the horizons in a brown haze. Change is so slow, people dont know how things are supposed to be anymore.
Four, global warming does strange things, like exacerbate the polar vortex causing big winter snow storms. Narrow small brained politicians like to trot this out every year, forgetting that it is a global average, not local weather. There will always be dumb arguments available.
Five, it will cost a lot and require a lot of working together to solve things from politicians to business to populations. I think that is more than we can handle as a species. It is far better to come up with good plans for solar, wind, nuclear power options, electrical transportation, etc, now and when there is time to implement rather than the mad dash to the exits once the shit hits the fan. Im sure so little will be done, that in fifty years all hell will break loose once the last denial and excuse has been used up.
Collectively we are grasshoppers, not ants.
Stick to used cars, preferably ones that get good MPGs. Seriously. A huge fraction of a car's lifetime CO2 emissions comes from manufacturing the car, and newer cars don't emit a whole lot less CO2.
No, only about 25-33% of the car's lifetime energy consumption (where the CO2 production comes from) is in its manufacture. The vast majority of it comes from fueling it, and burning that fuel. In the bargain, burning that fuel comes with other emissions like CO, NOx, HCs, and soot. More of that stuff is trapped when it's produced in a centralized location, or at least it can be. I knew a guy who used to climb smokestacks for the EPA. He told me that we can find plants out of compliance as fast as we can pay people to check on them. But that doesn't invalidate the concept of centralized generation making it easier to clean up pollution, it only indicts our current system for doing so. We have never given the EPA sufficient authority nor funding to actually address the problem.
Replacing an ICE with a slightly more efficient ICE may well be a waste of time, but replacing an ICE with an EV is not. Even in our current system, you get substantial emissions reduction from doing so. For one thing, power plants don't run on gasoline. The least-efficient fuel they are run on is diesel. Diesel takes about 40% as much energy to produce as gasoline. Simply not refining crude into gasoline saves a massive amount of energy, and thus reduces CO2 production dramatically.
On the other hand, old ICE-based cars have problems, and you can't expect people to be able to afford to maintain them given that they are not designed to be cheaply maintained any more. You used to be able to do pretty much anything to a car with just a pair of ramps and a floor jack, and the usual set of mechanics' tools. Today, there are tons of automotive repair jobs which cannot reasonably be done without a lift. Cars are designed to have the front subframe with the engine and transmission dropped as a group for major maintenance. People can't do this at home, and they can't afford to go to the dealer to have it done either. But they can afford to buy a newer car, because they can do it on credit.
It makes zero sense for most humans to dick around with most used cars. It doesn't help that the only ones that are easy to work on are sports cars, and those get used up in racing. The Nissan 240SX was wonderful to work on, but just try finding a cheap one any more.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Move the planet further from the sun and celebrate the extra week as 'robot party week'?
Between Trump himself and the NHTSA report, nothing is going to get done about this, and when corporations only care about next quarters' profits, and governments stick their fingers in their ears and ignore it, and the average person says "Why should I care? That's some other generations' problem, not mine", we're probably well on our way to a slow extiction-level event for the human species -- and maybe everything else. Depressing.
Let's just remind ourselves that you are going apeshit
Hey Hey, lets not blow this out of portion. Seems to me he is just going a little batshit, but not at the apeshit level. Lets not ratchet this up THAT level if we can help it. :)
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
That is a very good question. A look here shows we are still not as warm as it was 6000- 8000 years ago during a what they call an OPTIMUM. Inother words, we are sub-optimum right now, and we need more heat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And if you go back further to the Pliocene, "The global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3 Ma–3 Ma) was 2–3 C higher than today, global sea level 25m higher, and the northern hemisphere ice sheet was ephemeral before the onset of extensive glaciation over Greenland that occurred in the late Pliocene around 3 Ma."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and
https://www.scientificamerican...
So you might want to tell the kids to buy a house at least 25 meters above current sea level, (and if you live on the west coast this is already a good idea due to the Cascadia subduction system) but other than that, life if not going to end if we get back to the Pliocene conditions.
Haha, the EU has low emissions? What a joke. You Euronuts really take the cake.
Yeah, my mistake. I guess I shouldn't point out that the EU is increasing their carbon output, instead of decreasing it. It is amazing how angry the Euro types get when I point out facts. I didn't mean to go "crazy" and start pointing out facts.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/european-renewables-are-up-so-are-carbon-emissions
That is a concept that many around here have been arguing for some time. The classical argument against renewable energy sources is that "they are more expensive" - which is only true if non-renewable (read: coal, gas, oil) are allowed to externalize waste disposal (read: stack emissions).
If the incumbent fossil fuel energy generation was required to factor those costs into per-kWh generation costs, I'd bet that technologies that don't put any of that crap into the air would be far more favorable, if not outright winners without subsidy.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Ah, the old "Gore is a hypocrite therefore the science is wrong" argument. What next - Feynmann could be an ass therefore quantum mechanics is bunk?
What is really new in this study? How does it compare to previous studies? Are previous studies wrong? Did they discover new facts?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
His point is that there are a whole lot of people that prattle on about what "we" need to do to stave off global disaster, but can't be fucked to do the same themselves.
The rant about Millennials is a distraction - there are plenty of hypocrites from each and every generation from the millenials to the octogenarians roaming the halls of Congress. No generation has a lock on hypocrisy, and never has.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Doesn't match real immigration numbers.
People still vote 'USA' with their feet.
I have dual citizenship, fuck the EU.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
However, the EU is what, 3% of the Earth's population? China and India put out more carbon in a day than the EU and the United States put together do in a year!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yep. The goal posts move so fast, it's hard to keep up.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Very much so. "Catastrophic climate change" has been predicted as a waterworld since before the Kevin Costner movie. Even this one says that the poles will entirely melt by 2030- something that hasn't happened in well over 3 billion years. There was ice in the poles at carbon levels 10x what they currently are.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
An equally useful indicator to me is how many of these scientists who are so alarmed, have switched to zero carbon housing, locally produced green electricity, and never traveling anywhere.
That last one is important, because the IPCC should have long ago switched to telepresence technology to cut the carbon footprint of their conferences.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
the world is run by corporations, not people. corporations are run by shareholders. a large part of the stock game is run by algorithms calculating and trading stocks for maximum efficiency. that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet.
Really the world is run by billionaires. If you established a pact that if [bad thing happens] happens a given number of billionaires and their heirs would die then you would see change. If they thought that they would be hunted down bin Laden style change would happen in a hurry. Until then they figure that they can always buy a safe place no matter what and are thus immune.
That's why you put the ark on wheels!
This years Nobel Prize for unfounded scientific reasoning goes to... Anonymous Coward!
Yap. Also, if you are a climate alarmist and you haven't gone vegan already, you have proven yourself a hypocrite not worth listening to.
You always lie. China was just coming out of a massive economic downturn that they were trying to hide. Coal usage increased. Now, they are back in another one due to Trumps saying enough of your shit.
You are a constant liar while getting paid by your chinese bosses.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Meritocracy is not democracy. What metric would you even use to gauge who will be in power?
The best ideas are found out by scientific inquiry and commercialization of those results in a competitive (capitalist) market where success naturally bubbles up. Improving education is also a direct result of capitalism, in a capitalist society nobody remains on top, you educate yourself to get on top, you implement the best ideas to stay on top but the rich 1% of today are not the same 1% of yesterday or tomorrow - there is a lot of flux and capacity.
If you take away the driver of our current society and put the "smartest" based on their ideas regardless of their contributions you end up with something akin to socialism and as we know, if in socialist societies results cannot be obtained by vote, you get communism where your results are obtained by force.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
And if you preselected technology isn't the winner, you just raise the externality cost on the competition until it is?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'll recalibrate my crapometer.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
'Engine out the bottom' is OLD.
I've change a bug motor (with 2 others) in 20 minutes. That's slow, nowhere near a record.
You don't need a lift, just jacks. Not even a cherry picker.
Cars are easier to fix today vs computer cars before OBD2.
Sports cars can be huge bitch. Take the motor off the mounts to access the plugs. Remove the motor to change a belt. Big motor, small engine compartment.
Car models get old, they become uncommon. It's not like front engine rear drive is an uncommon configuration. 240SX's time has just passed as a cheap chassis for a 'kit car'. They're putting V8s in Miatas now, works great, as long as you're stubby enough to fit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
My point is there needs to be a sufficient financial penalty imposed on corporations who contribute disproportionately to climate change if we want to change their behaviour. If screwing mother earth is profitable, and a viable option for investors, then of course that's what they'll do. It's no good, giving them this option and then acting disappointed if they exercise it. Lawmakers need to understand the beasts they are governing and how to influence them to get the results they want. Appeal to their wallets, not their morals. That is more in line with how they measure their performance.
I agree 100% with you here. I was just pointing out that we can't rely on the algorithms themselves; we or our government needs to increase the immediate expenses of greenhouse gas pollution.
We can impact the financial calculations through boycotts and negative publicity. Eventually, companies that aren't even in our sights will lower their emissions to get good publicity.
Think globally but act within local variable scope.
Blackbody radiation absorption for CO2 is at less than 11%. Absorption in the lower atmosphere is saturated so can only be absorbed in the troposphere, where CO2 is much less common, and yet no measurements have found a "hot spot" that high up.
No, the absorption of infrared is not saturated in the lower atmosphere. Here are a couple of posts about that:
A saturated gassy argument
Oops, here is part ii.
A saturated gassy argument-part ii
Everyone acknowledges the problem. The solution eludes us.
The solution does not elude us. I've listened to many experts on energy and they all agree on several key points.
First key point, more nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe, costs are less than wind and solar, reliable, and has lower CO2 emissions than any other energy source we have. The nuclear power plants we have now are getting old and will need to be replaced. We will need to start building nuclear power reactors now so when it's time to retire these old reactors we have something to take their place.
Second key point, more natural gas. While this might seem counter productive this is vital as a means to transition from energy sources in current use of higher CO2 contributions, specifically coal and oil. To make vehicles move requires a fuel that is energy dense, plentiful, inexpensive, and easily converted to motive force. While natural gas isn't as energy dense as gasoline or diesel fuel it is close enough that conversion should be of little cost with the benefit of an immediate reduction of CO2 produced per mile by 30% or more. Much of the reductions in CO2 in the USA has been from switching electricity production from coal to natural gas. We can do better with nuclear power but in the time it will take to build those nuclear power plants we can burn natural gas for electricity and work to switch transportation to natural gas.
Third key point, stop the subsidies. Subsidizing energy sources prevents the competition needed to drive lesser products and technologies from the market. There's enough solar and wind companies now that there can be real competition based on who can provide energy at the lowest price. What's happening now is that the winners are those with the best lobbyists than the best technology. Stop subsidizing bad windmills, solar collectors, electric cars, and so on, so natural market forces allow the best to come to market. Maybe there was a time when these subsidies were needed but that time has passed.
This is not a fourth key point really but more an addendum to the point above, stop with pushing so much solar power! This keeps getting brought up again and again. Solar power is bad for the grid because it provides lots of power in the day and nothing at night, and does so nationwide all at the same time. At least with wind it's randomized a bit, there's some at night, and without the drop off in the evening when energy is needed most. Solar is also quite expensive, produces waste that's difficult to recycle, and takes a lot of area for the energy produced. Putting the collectors on rooftops only adds to the cost, even if it allows for preserving use of the land under it, and also adds to the risk of injuries and death to those installing and maintaining them. We need more wind and nuclear before we need to resort to expensive and generally problematic solar.
We have solutions but also a federal government seemingly unwilling or unable to implement them.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
However, the EU is what, 3% of the Earth's population? China and India put out more carbon in a day than the EU and the United States put together do in a year!
This is simply not true. As of 2015, China was about 3x the EU and India was about 2/3. Nothing like 365:1.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
I respect your opinion, but the Millennials thing is a valid observation in mine. Within the last week, I've seen one news piece declaring Mellennials to be the most well-travelled generation ever, and another declaring them to be the most environmentally-concious.
That's notable. Yes, nobody has a lock on hypocricy, but regardless, that's notable.
Mellennials are the ones who have come of age during the Climate Change moral panic. Who have come alive during a half dozen other moral panics as well, not to mention, the critical mass of social media. Pointing out that the generation that currently makes up the majority of the 18-39 demographic that determines a nation's popular culture, are openly speaking out of both sides of their mouthes en-masse, is entirely relevant.
Have other generations done it before? Yep. That doesn't necessarily make any given generation of observers wrong, though. If you keep calling something green when it's not green, when it finally turns green, you're finally right.
Are you aware of another generation that has taken their parents to job interviews? Now, is this practice common among Mellenials? No. But it's fucking unheard of in every other generation.
How many generations do you know that have needed "trigger warnings" and rooms with teddy bears and stuffed animals for grown adults?
Face it, something is rotten in the stat of Denmark, and it's not the same week-old sushi that your parents and their parents and their parents had to smell. Oh yeah, they had a whole different set of problems, but they generally grew up and matured.
That every generation has its hypocrites does not make any less notable the extraordinary level of open and obvious hypocricy we see today. I'm not saying that it's the fault of the Mellenials entirely, their parents have to get much of the blame, and probably certain aspects of social media and large corporate parties fanning the narcissitic flames for their own beneift, but putting blame aside, we're in somewhat uncharted territory.
I don't think it's easy to identity a generation which has had more moral panics in a single decade, or another generation that has been openly and at times, seemingly proudly, hypocritical. Yeah, there have been conformist groupthinking generations before, but rarely have the been so while loudly proclaiming themselves to be "tolerant" and "diverse". I mean, of all words to choose ... they choose the exact opposite of what they practice, and not one person in the sphere of highly-educated people stops to say "you know, perhaps we should pick a word that accurately discribes what we strive to be?"
Moral Panics used to be the domain of the religious right Proletariat. Now it's shifted to become the primary MO of the affluent, well-educated, Bourgeoisie.
Until relatively recently, people from across the political spectrum could be friends and consider each other human. No longer. Now the young, creative class immediately dehumanizes and declares evil and unworthy of employment anyone who does not immediately meet their purity test. People who are convinced, quite honestly, that anyone that disagrees with them is a "troll", because it's patently unthinkable that anyone could legitimate disagree with them. We're seeing levels of cognitive dissonance on an extraordinary scale, and this time it's primary victims are people who, by a great many accounts, should know better. People with $100,000+ educations. People who learn that you can't both a) Increase the unskilled labor pool and b) expect living standards for the working-class to rise. Yet there they are, marching alternately for both of these things. People who scream "Black Lives Matter", while gentrifying every black life
WTF?
Find me a single instance of me being a goddamn law abider you deluded jackass.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
They're putting V8s in Miatas now, works great, as long as you're stubby enough to fit.
I'm not. I miss my 240SX, especially since I have an Audi with an ABZ in it that would be perfect up in there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This isn't going to work.
Too many economies have built themselves around oil dependence or other processes that release massive CO2, and will be openly hostile to change. These countries would sooner go to war with the rest of the world than stop polluting. They just don't care about the future.
Therefore on the short time scale we have been given, we can't realistically change the CO2 output, but we might be able to increase the rate of CO2 input through atmospheric scrubbers like what Sweden is doing. One day. In the meantime, there's something we can do in the next five years:
Change the solar input.
Until we have a reliable and scalable solution to remove CO2 from the air we're going to need a big umbrella.
One large satellite or, more realistically, a network of smaller satellites with solar umbrellas placed around the equator or at the poles, large enough to attenuate the solar irradiation to the Earth. Significant reductions in surface temperature could be achieved with just a bit of blocking without giving a noticeable drop in light levels.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
It's easy to have low gulag prisoner rates when most people simply die in the gulag(dead bodies don't count, and it keeps the ledgers clean). That's coming from someone who's grandfather spent 20 years in one for refusing to give his cows to "the state" oh and they demanded he provide the same next year.
Om, nomnomnom...
Citation needed.
Sure, try the UK, Sweden, and Germany. All of which banned political parties.
Oh, I think I get where you're coming from. What a cute little way for a racist to call attention to the inherent criminality of "particular races"
Oh look at the bigot. So you're arguing that the inquires that stated that the police, crown, and councils didn't cover up crimes by particular groups of people for fear of being labeled racist in the UK? Are you also arguing that the government under merkel didn't do the same to the federal german police? They did just a FYI, they still haven't caught the leaker either. Are you saying that the same thing didn't happen in Sweden and the Netherlands? It did, the one in NDL was caught and arrested they haven't found the one from Sweden.
Are you saying that in Swedens case they didn't illegally seize a domain, servers, and infrastructure of a person who published this information in order to try and find them? Oh and it was because they'd released "unscrubbed" crime reports listing the background of the person(s) involved but scrubbed of identifiable information.
What a little bitch you are.
I'd rather be a bitch then a coward that's afraid of facts.
Om, nomnomnom...
Is "he" the one doing the suppressing, or is he the one being suppressed? Logic tells me he can't be both.
If you vote in a political party that holds in it's platform a desire to repress and control speech, you are complicit in suppressing the viewpoints of others. He, being a citizen of the UK - has stated that he agrees with speech suppression, and going further stated that said ruling class of the UK didn't "go far enough, and he desired to emigrate to another country to impose harsher rules."
Om, nomnomnom...
Yes.
Increasing the Earth's albido slightly will at least reduce the net solar irradiation reaching the surface. And hopefully buy us some time to scrub the excessive CO2 from the atmosphere before the oceans acidify.
My solution was to use satellites, but cloud brightening might be easier.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Whoa, there buddy. Heading off into ga-ga land a little there, aren't we?
Can we keep bullshit fads out of this discussion?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Nope.... I'll never support suggestions that it's somehow wise to try to roll back technology by way of taxation.
You can always play the "What if?" game, arguing why we might be better off if something or other didn't exist. But everything we create that gets traction and becomes part of our lifestyle does so because it adds immense value. The downsides need to be looked at and addressed -- but trying to tax a genie back into a bottle? I'd say politically impossible! Politically difficult to enact the tax itself, perhaps. But impossible to achieve the desired result.
Once people are aware that a means exists to do something, they expect to be able to do it. Government might have more leverage than normal with the airplane, but only because it's always maintained a high level of control of flights. Still, if taxes became too high for people to afford to fly for vacations, they'd look for ways around it. They wouldn't go back to a blissful unawareness that a vacation overseas could be a thing.
Our levels of energy consumption probably rise and fall too, as opposed to a linear upward trend. I don't know if there are any good stats to prove this argument? But just looking at utility prices and demand alone, I see evidence of that. I remember when the power companies were investing heavily in new power plants to meet estimated future demand, only to find out it didn't materialize. The nuclear plant near my old residence in Missouri was running at about 50% capacity for years for that reason. And even if you just look at a specific tech like computers? We went from power hungry desktop and tower systems to a vast majority of people using laptops instead. On the flip-side, you had a big surge of power usage for crypto-coin mining in recent years, which will again fade away as it becomes unprofitable and people migrate to new crypto-coins that don't necessarily demand all of that CPU power to work with them.
The average speed of travel of Atlantic hurricanes depends on latitude (and there is considerable variance). They are slowest between 15-25 N (17.5 km/h) but accelerates as the move north (or south, but they don't cross the equator). By 35-40 N the average is 39 km/h, the one that got to 55-60 N was going 56 km/h. That last speed is pretty good clip for any boat that is not a speed boat, but a ship could maintain position in the eye all the way to landfall. But then you tie up and unload the ship real fast. Of course getting to the eye in a ship is a problem.
The world 2 km rowing record is 18.5 km/h (the Ark can't use sails in the calm eye), but even if Noah can match a racing shell, 2 km isn't going to help much. Long distance ocean rowing records are more like 5 km/h. He'll definitely need some holy power there.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
As a co-founder, shareholder and executive of an Austrian start-up, I concur. Shareholders in Europe do not "run" corporations. The executives appointed by the shareholders run corporations in the best interest of the latter.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
So people simply die in the gulag (because dead bodies don't countt, and it keeps the ledgers clean) yet youir grandfather managed to spend 20 years in one.
Don't you see a little contradiction there?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
so overpopulation can never be charged with responsibility for climate change.
Has any one ever tried to?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Soon to be two years data. Why is the EU increasing their carbon output?
That's probably Britain burning all our bridges.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Apparently you aren't very good at reading. I'm not being a snob at all.
Yes, yes you are. When you make out you are better than someone or they are somehow worthless because of some ill defined 'what they are' metric that you decide. Even using a term like eurosnob invalidates the entire point you are trying to make and if you can't see that then you are a fucking idiot to boot.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Combine that with iron sulphate induced blooms in deep water. You have to harvest the excess salmon to keep it from crashing the local ecosystem but then you have salmon and a lot of carbon sinking to the bottom. The algae mats also have better albedo.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
From climate extremism, it's not a bullshit fad. If you actually believe atmospheric carbon is dangerous, then industries involving meat, thanks to the methane produced from dung, are among the biggest polluters on the planet.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
My point is, hasn't quite opened PERMANENTLY, has it? After all, the last two winters the ice advanced further south than in the past 20 years.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Interesting, considering I'm a pro-lifer and do care about the unborn (well, already conceived) children. Though I care about them for a different reason: I consider depopulation to be dangerous, and genius to be so rare and unpredictable that we could have already killed off the kid who would have cured cancer.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I've never taken for granted that it's within the purview of peer-reviewed science to recommend economic policy actions, even at a modest scale, must less terraforming the entire human economy.
Economic policy is not science, and scientific peer review does not apply.
The science is the peer-reviewed part. The economic recommendations are the communist fraternity part, with no qualified peer review whatsoever.
I'm all for a new academic discipline of economic and political risk mitigation. But please don't call these people scientists. They're not. They are academics of a completely different stripe, meta-scientists who consume technology, but digest it in a different stomach.
No. I'd be happy with a proper accounting of the costs, rather than not accounting for it at all for over a hundred years and letting the problems be paid for by other people.
Isn't it the libertarian credo that the market should be able to decide? So let's make it an even market and have the polluter pay. Get rid of all subsidy, be it direct or indirect.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Feynman is not an ass. Sun is hot. Details at 11.
So people simply die in the gulag (because dead bodies don't countt, and it keeps the ledgers clean) yet youir grandfather managed to spend 20 years in one.
No they don't "simply die" they're either killed because it's more expedient, a favorite of the old USSR especially with politically dangerous but unknown to the wider world. That's then labeled a "natural death" because as we all know, because hypothermia is a natural death. And the people who survived gulags did so were kept alive because of three things: Examples. They were incarcerated close enough to the fall of the USSR. Made themselves invaluable despite their "crimes" against the state.
Don't you see a little contradiction there?
No. He survived because, he was smart. He ran a black market(even the guards bought from him), and he made himself somewhat valuable because of the remote location and his ability for engine repair they didn't have to dispatch someone else to do repairs on equipment. That didn't stop the commisars from ordering that every finger and thumb joint be broken, or both of his wrists a week from his release date. Or the fact for his release, he was specifically sent to east germany and put in a factory where he couldn't work - he was put there as an example and a warning.
Om, nomnomnom...
That's not the only rational conclusion. Another is that the politicians that keep talking of our impending doom unless we do something don't believe their own words.
You must be able to see right through them. That's awesome.
Another example the US Coast Guard wants... that's not right, NEEDS new ice breakers to service scientific missions in Antarctica
I'm not following your reasoning of why the US Coast Guard needs to guard the coast of Antarctica. Shouldn't they be busying themselves preventing immigrants and drug dealers making it to US shores? Instead of wasting time on science is some chunk of ice. You're saying it's a horrendous waste of tax pay money being down there when those immigrant muslims are just barging into America to take jobs and bring drugs into the country. You seem ashamed about that.
Here's an example, the US Navy wanted some new nuclear powered warships.
Someone has to stick up for the military's right to kill people and end civilization, I bet that kind of liberalism really get's you so mad.
If these people were serious about solving the problems of reducing CO2 output, providing for energy independence, and assuring the military is effective in defending our national interests, then they'd be building nuclear powered ships and putting nuclear power plants on military bases, airports, seaports, and other vital facilities.
Living the dream.
This means a series of half-assed "solutions" that on the surface appear to be a means to make things better but in the end merely push the problem off into the future so it can still be held over the head of the public to stay in power and distract from other matters they are imposing on the public.
I see where you're going now. Basically you're saying those sociopaths have an unimaginative, incapable and unrealistic view of Nuclear power and think people are dumb enough to believe it while they produce inaction. Great insights there.
I did use "sociopath" instead of "psychopath" as you did. That's because a psychopath is someone with violent tendencies, which these people are not doing. Maybe the foot soldiers in the form of GreenPeace are violent but the people at the top making the decisions are not.
Ok, so what you are saying is to project a propensity for violence onto them like they are the aggressors to feel justified to be the aggressor. Clever.
They are sociopaths, people that are acting without concern for others and in ways that are considered antisocial.
Oh, I see. Like those sociopaths that don't really care who gets hurt by transgenic disease in the generations to come from radio-isotopes. I'm so glad that you pointed that out.
These sociopaths demand that we take on the costs of buying new electric cars but can't be bothered to fund nuclear powered ships for the Navy and Coast Guard.
They're forcing the US coast guard to guard the US coast because that's the only place they can refuel.
This is not the actions of a government that is taking CO2 emissions seriously.
If the US coast guard doesn't get nuclear powered boats *real soon* climate change will destroy humanity.
I did use "sociopath" instead of "psychopath" as you did.
They are some amazing insights into how a sociopaths thinks. Thank you so much.
Therefore I conclude that they don't believe CO2 emissions are any real threat to humanity or national security.
You must get confused why people can't see how amazing you are BS. All your BS reasoning to come to an obvious conclusion which must mean everything else is right.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The definition of rape has become so muddied by recent events that it is virtually useless. Everything is a rape these days. Marriage is rape by the standards of feminazis.
Life is suffering. The sooner you understand that, the better off you'll be.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.