600,000 years? We're talking geology. 600,000 years ago until today is just the tail end of the Quaternary ice age. There's been ice at the poles the whole time, and ice covering a big chunk of the Earth, interrupted every 100k years by brief inter-glacial eras, like the one we're in.
In a warm period, there's no ice at the poles. During the Silurian period atmospheric CO2 reached 4500 ppm. Life was simple, because of the mass extinction event at the end or the Ordovician (thought to be due to very extensive and sudden glaciation, which in turn caused the high CO2 levels, which in turn brought temps back up to something livable).
who gives a damn if 40-ton herbivores that are extinct could survive in a climate mankind is creating. The salient point here is preventing the extinction of mankind and the living organisms we depend on for survival.
You understand that the larger the herbivore, the more dense and rapid plant growth is required to support it? Plants grow like crazy in a high CO2 environment (you do understand that plants are made of the carbon from CO2, right?). We're omnivorous, we'll certainly have something to eat. Even if we fully transition to a worldwide tropical climate (which would take thousands of years), there's plenty of current food that grows in a tropical climate.
Ha, no. Even if we burned all the known fossil fuel reserves, it's not even a rounding error in the rock cycle. Won't help us any, since we're talking about geological time scales, but releasing all of the carbon "above the crust" (oceans, life, whatever), plus all the coal, oil, etc, all at once, won't even be noticed on that scale.
Vast agribusiness corporations have plenty of money to retire their southernmost fields and acquire some land to the north. And that's what farming is in the modern era - large corporations. Efficiency of scale is what makes food so cheap (OK, probably less cheap if we actually remove illegals from the workforce, but that's a different problem).
Giving power to the government is always evil, because we are governed by humans, not angels, and any power will eventually be used against the people. You must justify that evil with some good that balances it.
It's funny how half the country is suddenly waking up to the fact the the president sometimes lies. Imagine that, a politician telling lies. What is this world coming to?
Even if their neighbors decided to genocidally exterminate them rather than let them through, that's peanuts compared to the effects of a nuclear war with Cold War arsenals. But if we really, seriously believe this will happen, shouldn't we start the evacuation now, whiles there's still decades to smooth the transition?
CO2's properties have been known for over a century. Increasing PPM increases heat trapped.
That has never been the point anyone has taken issue with. How expensive will it be? How expensive will it be to eliminate CO2 emission? How much of the ongoing warming is because of mankind's CO2 emissions, vs changes in the Sun?
You seem emotionally unstable. Are you seeing a therapist? It might help.
Do you honestly believe that's a risk? On the assumption you aren't trolling, let me explain.
The Earth has a geological-scale carbon cycle. All the carbon in the air and ocean is something like a hundred-thousandth of the carbon in the rock cycle. Venus's atmosphere is not simply carbon similar to what's in our air, oceans, fossil fuel reserves, etc, but the result of all that carbon in the crust being released. There aren't any surface features on Venus more than a few 100 million years old. It's thought that the entire crust melted, recently (geologically speaking), and that this may happen regularly, as Venus doesn't have plate tectonics to allow internal heat to escape via convection.
So, 1, Venus's atmosphere is a result of the crust melting, and, 2, the atmosphere is the least of your worries if the crust melts!
Historical CO2 concentrations on Earth have been 10x what they are today. It certainly wasn't an ice age, but life prospered. In general, plants like CO2, to the point where, in the last warm era, megaflora supported the grazing habits of 40-ton herbivores.
It won't change so very fast that current farmland becomes unusable in 1 season. Viable areas for farmland will simply move (mostly move towards the poles) gradually over the years. If we were still primitive, that could be disastrous, but we're not. Clearing farmland, fertilizer, and so on just aren't that hard. And shipping food is a very well solved problem.
Sure, where there's actually a catch block there's an expense, because you have to check the class hierarchy of the thrown exception at runtime, that part makes sense, it's more branches than a simple return code check, but if you avoid Pokemon code that's not a big deal. And if your thrown exception type is not a derived class, then it should just be a pointer comparison anyhow (of course, deep inheritance chains for exceptions seem to be a common pattern, for some reason).
Multiple catch blocks is no different from a switch on a return code. Hooking the exception at the point it's thrown for debuggers is something I've seen in C debuggers as well, though admittedly it comes up a lot less.
There's no scenario in which climate change is going to reduce the overall ability of the planet to support life, including human life. We know what a warm Earth looks like, and it's far more dense with life than the current Quaternary Ice Age.
Yes, I'm proposing a tax. Taxes are not inherently evil..
Of course they are. Anything that makes the government more powerful is inherently evil. You have to prove that more good will come from that power, even with an evil government openly hostile to it's people, for a tax to be justified.
We are responsible through unrestrained CO2 emissions for a significant amount of climate change that is happening *right now* and into the future,
So you say. It's can't be quantified, of course. Heck, climate models are giving about 2 sigmas of accuracy right now, which would laughable even in social science. We have no useful data on which to say that reducing CO2 emission will be cheaper than coping with climate change. But the argument that we can somehow stop climate change is obvious bullshit. Climate change is always happening "right now". The climate is just not a stable sort of thing.
One thing's for sure though: warming is vastly easier to cope with than glaciers covering all of Europe, Russia, Canada, and the Northern US.
, because you aren't as intelligent as an actual scientist.
You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. (Also, you have no clue what I do for a living.) Nice combination of ad-hominum and ad-expertum though - 2 fallacies in one!
I don't believe there are experts when it comes to politics, but if there are it will be it's own field, not physicists. Political ideas need to stand on their own merits. But the left these days is so obsessed with being the Smart Tribe, and of course that's measured by whether you agree with Smart People (your betters), not by whether the ideas in question make any damn sense.
The US military under Obama was quite politically correct. Now Mad-Dog Mathis is in charge, and bullshit will be phased out.
But yes, of course, people will have to move. There's a real risk of war once the current tolerance of mass immigration fades. And it seems to be fading. But that has nothing to do with "Doomsday". There will always be wars. Life goes on.
How unexpected! You proposed a tax - I never saw that coming. You combine both ways to make the government more powerful.
The climate's going to change, regardless. People are going to move off of coal-fired powerplants, regardless. Electric cars will eventually dominate, regardless. Technology marches on. When new products are actually better, and they will be, people switch to them.
It's rare for people to "carry around" an external DAC, just like you don't carry around a good pair of headphones - you have them where you listen to music.
It's funny that people making this argument are generally also happy to increase the overwhelming burden of debt we pass to our grandchildren. It's a consistent view though: everything is just another reason to increase government power, from forcing action on climate change to increasing spending, it's all good.
It's a published opinion of a group of scientists, it's their way of summing up to the world how they think we are doing in terms of not self-destructing our way of life.
I give 0 fucks about the political opinion of scientists. It has the same weight as the political opinion of actors and sports celebrities - none at all.
It's been moved forward because they don't like Trump. That's fundamentally the reason. That's it. No fact. Just opinion.
Seriously. Hillary was openly hostile with Russia, and while I doubt it would have reached the point of increased risk of nuclear war, Russia still has real nukes, so you never know. Trump on the other hand is, if anything, too friendly with Russia.
And, sorry, but I just can't see climate change as some world-ending event. Maybe because I grew up Fearing The Bomb, but temperatures going up a few degrees and water levels rising a bit just doesn't provoke the same emotional reaction as global thermonuclear war.
In my experience, T-Mo gets upset at tethering, and starts blocking various web sites and whatnot. Also, do any modern Android phones provide it? Oh, why am I asking you, you undoubtedly have an iPhone.
$10/GB isn't very useful for streaming video, I think. I'm really starting to miss my old phone with both tethering and an HDMI port.
Does T-Mo offer an actual unlimited plan? A reasonable pay-per-GB plan? Sounds very useful. Not believing getting a T-Mo signal out in the boonies, but that's a different issue.
No - but most languages with duck typing aren't in any way strongly typed, making them useless for "real code" IMO. Concepts allow compile-time checking with code that looks like duck-typing, and with good usability/maintainability (in strong contrast to current templates for this).
Sure, but why does that necessarily involve a huge perf hit? You need a conditional branch on each frame, sure, if you're not using Microsoft's trick (but you're doing that even if no exception was thrown, to hook the destructors), but having taken that branch and found an exception handler, why should it be crazy expensive at that point?
Slashdot Mirror
Warm is vastly easier than cold. Larger mammals would just have been tasty snacks at the time, so we didn't see larger until niches opened up.
600,000 years? We're talking geology. 600,000 years ago until today is just the tail end of the Quaternary ice age. There's been ice at the poles the whole time, and ice covering a big chunk of the Earth, interrupted every 100k years by brief inter-glacial eras, like the one we're in.
In a warm period, there's no ice at the poles. During the Silurian period atmospheric CO2 reached 4500 ppm. Life was simple, because of the mass extinction event at the end or the Ordovician (thought to be due to very extensive and sudden glaciation, which in turn caused the high CO2 levels, which in turn brought temps back up to something livable).
who gives a damn if 40-ton herbivores that are extinct could survive in a climate mankind is creating. The salient point here is preventing the extinction of mankind and the living organisms we depend on for survival.
You understand that the larger the herbivore, the more dense and rapid plant growth is required to support it? Plants grow like crazy in a high CO2 environment (you do understand that plants are made of the carbon from CO2, right?). We're omnivorous, we'll certainly have something to eat. Even if we fully transition to a worldwide tropical climate (which would take thousands of years), there's plenty of current food that grows in a tropical climate.
Ha, no. Even if we burned all the known fossil fuel reserves, it's not even a rounding error in the rock cycle. Won't help us any, since we're talking about geological time scales, but releasing all of the carbon "above the crust" (oceans, life, whatever), plus all the coal, oil, etc, all at once, won't even be noticed on that scale.
Vast agribusiness corporations have plenty of money to retire their southernmost fields and acquire some land to the north. And that's what farming is in the modern era - large corporations. Efficiency of scale is what makes food so cheap (OK, probably less cheap if we actually remove illegals from the workforce, but that's a different problem).
Way to not read the whole post.
Giving power to the government is always evil, because we are governed by humans, not angels, and any power will eventually be used against the people. You must justify that evil with some good that balances it.
So you're saying that water boarding works?
It's funny how half the country is suddenly waking up to the fact the the president sometimes lies. Imagine that, a politician telling lies. What is this world coming to?
Even if their neighbors decided to genocidally exterminate them rather than let them through, that's peanuts compared to the effects of a nuclear war with Cold War arsenals. But if we really, seriously believe this will happen, shouldn't we start the evacuation now, whiles there's still decades to smooth the transition?
CO2's properties have been known for over a century. Increasing PPM increases heat trapped.
That has never been the point anyone has taken issue with. How expensive will it be? How expensive will it be to eliminate CO2 emission? How much of the ongoing warming is because of mankind's CO2 emissions, vs changes in the Sun?
You seem emotionally unstable. Are you seeing a therapist? It might help.
Do you honestly believe that's a risk? On the assumption you aren't trolling, let me explain.
The Earth has a geological-scale carbon cycle. All the carbon in the air and ocean is something like a hundred-thousandth of the carbon in the rock cycle. Venus's atmosphere is not simply carbon similar to what's in our air, oceans, fossil fuel reserves, etc, but the result of all that carbon in the crust being released. There aren't any surface features on Venus more than a few 100 million years old. It's thought that the entire crust melted, recently (geologically speaking), and that this may happen regularly, as Venus doesn't have plate tectonics to allow internal heat to escape via convection.
So, 1, Venus's atmosphere is a result of the crust melting, and, 2, the atmosphere is the least of your worries if the crust melts!
Historical CO2 concentrations on Earth have been 10x what they are today. It certainly wasn't an ice age, but life prospered. In general, plants like CO2, to the point where, in the last warm era, megaflora supported the grazing habits of 40-ton herbivores.
It won't change so very fast that current farmland becomes unusable in 1 season. Viable areas for farmland will simply move (mostly move towards the poles) gradually over the years. If we were still primitive, that could be disastrous, but we're not. Clearing farmland, fertilizer, and so on just aren't that hard. And shipping food is a very well solved problem.
Sure, where there's actually a catch block there's an expense, because you have to check the class hierarchy of the thrown exception at runtime, that part makes sense, it's more branches than a simple return code check, but if you avoid Pokemon code that's not a big deal. And if your thrown exception type is not a derived class, then it should just be a pointer comparison anyhow (of course, deep inheritance chains for exceptions seem to be a common pattern, for some reason).
Multiple catch blocks is no different from a switch on a return code. Hooking the exception at the point it's thrown for debuggers is something I've seen in C debuggers as well, though admittedly it comes up a lot less.
There's no scenario in which climate change is going to reduce the overall ability of the planet to support life, including human life. We know what a warm Earth looks like, and it's far more dense with life than the current Quaternary Ice Age.
Yes, I'm proposing a tax. Taxes are not inherently evil..
Of course they are. Anything that makes the government more powerful is inherently evil. You have to prove that more good will come from that power, even with an evil government openly hostile to it's people, for a tax to be justified.
We are responsible through unrestrained CO2 emissions for a significant amount of climate change that is happening *right now* and into the future,
So you say. It's can't be quantified, of course. Heck, climate models are giving about 2 sigmas of accuracy right now, which would laughable even in social science. We have no useful data on which to say that reducing CO2 emission will be cheaper than coping with climate change. But the argument that we can somehow stop climate change is obvious bullshit. Climate change is always happening "right now". The climate is just not a stable sort of thing.
One thing's for sure though: warming is vastly easier to cope with than glaciers covering all of Europe, Russia, Canada, and the Northern US.
, because you aren't as intelligent as an actual scientist.
You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. (Also, you have no clue what I do for a living.) Nice combination of ad-hominum and ad-expertum though - 2 fallacies in one!
I don't believe there are experts when it comes to politics, but if there are it will be it's own field, not physicists. Political ideas need to stand on their own merits. But the left these days is so obsessed with being the Smart Tribe, and of course that's measured by whether you agree with Smart People (your betters), not by whether the ideas in question make any damn sense.
The US military under Obama was quite politically correct. Now Mad-Dog Mathis is in charge, and bullshit will be phased out.
But yes, of course, people will have to move. There's a real risk of war once the current tolerance of mass immigration fades. And it seems to be fading. But that has nothing to do with "Doomsday". There will always be wars. Life goes on.
How unexpected! You proposed a tax - I never saw that coming. You combine both ways to make the government more powerful.
The climate's going to change, regardless. People are going to move off of coal-fired powerplants, regardless. Electric cars will eventually dominate, regardless. Technology marches on. When new products are actually better, and they will be, people switch to them.
It's rare for people to "carry around" an external DAC, just like you don't carry around a good pair of headphones - you have them where you listen to music.
Didn't Nixon get drunk once and order a nuclear strike on North Korea? I think they added a breathalyzer to the big red button after that.
It's funny that people making this argument are generally also happy to increase the overwhelming burden of debt we pass to our grandchildren. It's a consistent view though: everything is just another reason to increase government power, from forcing action on climate change to increasing spending, it's all good.
It's a published opinion of a group of scientists, it's their way of summing up to the world how they think we are doing in terms of not self-destructing our way of life.
I give 0 fucks about the political opinion of scientists. It has the same weight as the political opinion of actors and sports celebrities - none at all.
It's been moved forward because they don't like Trump. That's fundamentally the reason. That's it. No fact. Just opinion.
Seriously. Hillary was openly hostile with Russia, and while I doubt it would have reached the point of increased risk of nuclear war, Russia still has real nukes, so you never know. Trump on the other hand is, if anything, too friendly with Russia.
And, sorry, but I just can't see climate change as some world-ending event. Maybe because I grew up Fearing The Bomb, but temperatures going up a few degrees and water levels rising a bit just doesn't provoke the same emotional reaction as global thermonuclear war.
In my experience, T-Mo gets upset at tethering, and starts blocking various web sites and whatnot. Also, do any modern Android phones provide it? Oh, why am I asking you, you undoubtedly have an iPhone.
$10/GB isn't very useful for streaming video, I think. I'm really starting to miss my old phone with both tethering and an HDMI port.
Does T-Mo offer an actual unlimited plan? A reasonable pay-per-GB plan? Sounds very useful. Not believing getting a T-Mo signal out in the boonies, but that's a different issue.
No - but most languages with duck typing aren't in any way strongly typed, making them useless for "real code" IMO. Concepts allow compile-time checking with code that looks like duck-typing, and with good usability/maintainability (in strong contrast to current templates for this).
Sure, but why does that necessarily involve a huge perf hit? You need a conditional branch on each frame, sure, if you're not using Microsoft's trick (but you're doing that even if no exception was thrown, to hook the destructors), but having taken that branch and found an exception handler, why should it be crazy expensive at that point?