I have a question for you. Are you a scientist or do you merely play one in real life?
You made a blanket statement about extinctions. I originally interpreted that to not include the particular circumstances of the PETM. But even if we do, we don't know exactly how species became extinct. They don't leave a DOA certificate even when they leave evidence of themselves in the fossil record. But yes, I would expect benthic species to be inordinately affected by what is alleged here to have occurred during the PETM.
Second, this is a case of moving of goalposts. Originally, we were speaking of ocean acidification and evidence for it in the geological record. That is why you mentioned the PETM in the first place. Since, you enlarged that to include global warming effects
Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification.
And now you have ignored ocean acidification altogether.
Further, it matters a lot to our current situation whether that warming was primarily due to CO2 or methane. The latter creates a more intense greenhouse effect, but is far less persistent in atmosphere. It also indicates that methane was released more or less suddenly in geological terms (maybe suddenly in human terms too!), perhaps due to clathrate ice decomposition.
In the case of a primary contribution due to methane, one only has to worry, if we're releasing methane (say due to clathrate tipping points). I think being in an ice age helps reduce the amount of methane that can be released as well as putting more physical pressure on existing methane clathrates in the oceans. And we probably can burn a good portion of the methane that does get released if it gets really bad.
While if the heating were due to CO2, then that's a problem in the not-so-distant future, since we're pretty much implementing that particular scenario right now with CO2 concentrations at the alleged level of 2000 Gtons around say 2150 (assuming we can and do sustain CO2 emissions at present day levels).
Finally, asking for a citation for a irrelevant aside is in my view a very amateur move. It's not as bad as some I've seen (particularly those who ask for citations on opinions).
let politicians decide on what's best for their constituents
With that approach, there would be no constituency other than the politicians themselves since there would be no accountability or communication possible.
Also as a US citizen, you should be aware of the First Amendment. In addition to the rights of freedom of speech and religion, the amendment specifies the right to petition for redress of grievances which is exactly what lobbying is.
Thus the existence of mechanisms in place that take steps to correct behavior, in a variety of means.
But which didn't actually correct behaviors in the Love Canal example.
But no, inventing human immortality is not a particularly pertinent example, as that would not have been an action you took that harmed others, but a failure for you to achieve something.
I strongly disagree. You're going to die early because I didn't invent immortality in 1997. I'm really sorry about that.
Although that goal is at least 20 years away, ITER is already burning through money at a prodigious pace. The United States is only a minor partner in the project, which began construction in 2008. But the U.S. contribution to ITER will total $3.9 billionâ"roughly four times as much as originally estimatedâ"according to a new cost estimate released yesterday. That is about $1.4 billion higher than a 2011 cost estimate, and the numbers are likely to intensify doubts among some members of Congress about continuing the U.S. involvement in the project.
That paragraph in a nutshell shows both the mismanagement and the connection between that mismanagement and a continued US contribution to ITER.
How can you justify America being unable to pursue green-energy and real R&D?
How can I justify something that didn't happen? I can't be bothered. Maybe you ought to show us how it's done in case we ever need to justify invisible pink unicorns.
Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification.
Most extinction you will never know happened, much less have a clue how they happened.
Since ocean acidification affected benthic species but not land species, it's either responsible for the fact that the PETM affected benthic species worse than on land... or something else is.
And "something else" is a large class of things even just in the scope of climate right now including substantial global warming (which incidentally need not have come from CO2) and massive volcanic eruptions.
Regardless, we can agree that the most significant stresses leading to PETM benthic extinctions are CO2-induced rapid warming and CO2-induced ocean acidification.
Regardless, we can't otherwise you would not have felt the need to write the above. I think what bothers me most about posts like yours above is the false certainty. You may well be 100% right, but you don't have a good reason to expect that.
And we also have still not demonstrated that ocean acidification was a significant factor in the PETM except to demonstrate that there are some scientists who think it is. Admittedly, that is evidence of a sort, but not very good evidence.
We conclude that dissolution and dysoxia were not
the cause of the extinctions, which were probably related to intense warming that occurred before the onset
of the CIE.
Ok, so what supports the claim that the level of ocean acidification was significant? For example, one would expect some increase in dissolution of calcite just from the temperature increase that occurred during the PETM.
It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.
What would you expect them to do for a rational rebuttal of ocean acidification? And this argument reminds me of interpretations of the Great Depression. Everyone wants to interpret it in terms of their personal ideologies and pet theories. In particular, I see no real argument for saying that the PETM had significant ocean acidification yet this isn't the first it's been trotted out as an example of the dire effects of ocean acidification.
And of course, you finish your post with the argument from authority fallacy.
Why keep fantasizing about people doing the right thing when it's evident that they wouldn't have done so? I'm sure the world would be a better place, if I invented human immortality in 1997, but that didn't happen either.
I am fine with the directors/owners of the companies being held personally liable, to the same extent as an individual is, (i.e. jail time) for the actions of their company .
So how liable are you as an individual for the actions of Coca Cola or Exxon? There's a good reason we don't implement your idea. Because no one, not even a director can personally police all of the actions of the people who work for a company. Liability and responsibility without the capability for that level of liability and responsibility is not far to that person.
And as I noted earlier, a company doesn't actually "act". This is a legal fiction.
never said assets where not seized, that's a type of fine
When one speaks of "jail" for an inanimate thing, this is the only way that makes sense.
Reality is itself ignorant of your statement. For example, in the recent Snowden scandal, it wasn't the NSA whose leash got pulled hard, but all the businesses and people affected by them. For example, a huge slice of the US IT industry's existence is threatened by NSA actions, but for the NSA it remains business as usual.
Because the engineers who physically control the hardware everyone uses have the rad the same SciFi you've read, and have therefore figured out what a seized AI would look like.
It would look like a non-seized AI - at least until everyone gets sent to the glue factories.
Reading through your previous posts, I see you admit (in the same sense that you claim I did) that corporations don't have agency.
Yes, a corporation requires a human to act on its behalf to do anything, but similarly you require your muscle and neural cells to act on yours, and they in turn rely on molecular machines.
That is not the same at all, unless you are trying to claim that muscle and neural cells have agency. In other words, humans act in both the macroscopic case of corporations "doing anything" or the microscopic case of peoples' muscle and neural cells "acting". It remains the same fallacy of blaming the inanimate object, be it a corporation or a hammer for the actions of the people who use the object.
It does, however, mean that the legal system is capable of holding positions on various subjects, such as the agency of hammers, and acting according to them. So do companies, countries etc: they have goals they are trying to reach, an agenda they're pushing. Which is pretty much the definition of agency.
No, it means the people who use the system do. The people remain the ones with agency.
Your statement is nonsensical because if institutions have no agency, action cannot be ascribed to them, which you did.
I did no such thing.
You're ascribing actions to the US legal system, which implies it has agency.
Again, I implicitly ascribe actions to the people who maintain the system. The rules in question were created by people and enforced by people.
if you aren't going to leap to the "indoctrination and control" conclusion
The problem isn't when we leap to that conclusion, but rather when the people owning the database do. Sure, I can see the potential positives. I can also see the potential negatives. Those nix the project.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you are blind to what the Europeans and Chinese have been able to do in green energy.
Like doubling the cost of electricity in Denmark and Germany? I'm really impressed and likely to stay that way.
And yet, with all the millions of documents he stole, he cannot provide any evidence of this beyond "trust me."
And how would he go about proving that? The burden of proof is on the US government and they deep-sixed that evidence.
You made a blanket statement about extinctions. I originally interpreted that to not include the particular circumstances of the PETM. But even if we do, we don't know exactly how species became extinct. They don't leave a DOA certificate even when they leave evidence of themselves in the fossil record. But yes, I would expect benthic species to be inordinately affected by what is alleged here to have occurred during the PETM.
Second, this is a case of moving of goalposts. Originally, we were speaking of ocean acidification and evidence for it in the geological record. That is why you mentioned the PETM in the first place. Since, you enlarged that to include global warming effects
Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification.
And now you have ignored ocean acidification altogether.
Further, it matters a lot to our current situation whether that warming was primarily due to CO2 or methane. The latter creates a more intense greenhouse effect, but is far less persistent in atmosphere. It also indicates that methane was released more or less suddenly in geological terms (maybe suddenly in human terms too!), perhaps due to clathrate ice decomposition.
In the case of a primary contribution due to methane, one only has to worry, if we're releasing methane (say due to clathrate tipping points). I think being in an ice age helps reduce the amount of methane that can be released as well as putting more physical pressure on existing methane clathrates in the oceans. And we probably can burn a good portion of the methane that does get released if it gets really bad.
While if the heating were due to CO2, then that's a problem in the not-so-distant future, since we're pretty much implementing that particular scenario right now with CO2 concentrations at the alleged level of 2000 Gtons around say 2150 (assuming we can and do sustain CO2 emissions at present day levels).
Finally, asking for a citation for a irrelevant aside is in my view a very amateur move. It's not as bad as some I've seen (particularly those who ask for citations on opinions).
let politicians decide on what's best for their constituents
With that approach, there would be no constituency other than the politicians themselves since there would be no accountability or communication possible.
Also as a US citizen, you should be aware of the First Amendment. In addition to the rights of freedom of speech and religion, the amendment specifies the right to petition for redress of grievances which is exactly what lobbying is.
Thus the existence of mechanisms in place that take steps to correct behavior, in a variety of means.
But which didn't actually correct behaviors in the Love Canal example.
But no, inventing human immortality is not a particularly pertinent example, as that would not have been an action you took that harmed others, but a failure for you to achieve something.
I strongly disagree. You're going to die early because I didn't invent immortality in 1997. I'm really sorry about that.
Do you have inside information?
I have public information.
Although that goal is at least 20 years away, ITER is already burning through money at a prodigious pace. The United States is only a minor partner in the project, which began construction in 2008. But the U.S. contribution to ITER will total $3.9 billionâ"roughly four times as much as originally estimatedâ"according to a new cost estimate released yesterday. That is about $1.4 billion higher than a 2011 cost estimate, and the numbers are likely to intensify doubts among some members of Congress about continuing the U.S. involvement in the project.
That paragraph in a nutshell shows both the mismanagement and the connection between that mismanagement and a continued US contribution to ITER.
How can you justify America being unable to pursue green-energy and real R&D?
How can I justify something that didn't happen? I can't be bothered. Maybe you ought to show us how it's done in case we ever need to justify invisible pink unicorns.
The US could have just stayed in ITER but it didn't because it thought fusion power was quixotic...
The US has stayed in ITER. It might leave ITER, but if it does so, it'll be because the project is so poorly managed.
Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification.
Most extinction you will never know happened, much less have a clue how they happened.
Since ocean acidification affected benthic species but not land species, it's either responsible for the fact that the PETM affected benthic species worse than on land... or something else is.
And "something else" is a large class of things even just in the scope of climate right now including substantial global warming (which incidentally need not have come from CO2) and massive volcanic eruptions.
Regardless, we can agree that the most significant stresses leading to PETM benthic extinctions are CO2-induced rapid warming and CO2-induced ocean acidification.
Regardless, we can't otherwise you would not have felt the need to write the above. I think what bothers me most about posts like yours above is the false certainty. You may well be 100% right, but you don't have a good reason to expect that.
And we also have still not demonstrated that ocean acidification was a significant factor in the PETM except to demonstrate that there are some scientists who think it is. Admittedly, that is evidence of a sort, but not very good evidence.
We conclude that dissolution and dysoxia were not the cause of the extinctions, which were probably related to intense warming that occurred before the onset of the CIE.
Ok, so what supports the claim that the level of ocean acidification was significant? For example, one would expect some increase in dissolution of calcite just from the temperature increase that occurred during the PETM.
Actually no, I have never once seen anyone make a scientific argument that a single weather event represents a long term AGW trend.
Impossible. Such arguments are by definition not scientific arguments.
7 inches per 60 tears is only a little bit less than the worldwide average of coastal sea level changes(of 2-3 feet per century)
By at least a factor of two.
A 2mm difference in all the stairs nobody will notice; a 2mm difference in one stair will trip people up
There's a scientific term for this sort of assertion: bullshit.
It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.
What would you expect them to do for a rational rebuttal of ocean acidification? And this argument reminds me of interpretations of the Great Depression. Everyone wants to interpret it in terms of their personal ideologies and pet theories. In particular, I see no real argument for saying that the PETM had significant ocean acidification yet this isn't the first it's been trotted out as an example of the dire effects of ocean acidification.
And of course, you finish your post with the argument from authority fallacy.
Blaming "government" as a monolithic entity makes just about as much sense as blaming "private enterprise" as a whole for any given problem.
And it would make sense, if private enterprise as a whole were responsible for a given problem.
Why keep fantasizing about people doing the right thing when it's evident that they wouldn't have done so? I'm sure the world would be a better place, if I invented human immortality in 1997, but that didn't happen either.
I am fine with the directors/owners of the companies being held personally liable, to the same extent as an individual is, (i.e. jail time) for the actions of their company .
So how liable are you as an individual for the actions of Coca Cola or Exxon? There's a good reason we don't implement your idea. Because no one, not even a director can personally police all of the actions of the people who work for a company. Liability and responsibility without the capability for that level of liability and responsibility is not far to that person.
And as I noted earlier, a company doesn't actually "act". This is a legal fiction.
never said assets where not seized, that's a type of fine
When one speaks of "jail" for an inanimate thing, this is the only way that makes sense.
Besides a few cameras and clocks in orbit, what else can you do with space?
"What have the Romans ever done for us?"
Nobody to care about the prettiness of it, or the morality issues of mining planets!
To the contrary, the less at stake the pettier the morality.
Reality is itself ignorant of your statement. For example, in the recent Snowden scandal, it wasn't the NSA whose leash got pulled hard, but all the businesses and people affected by them. For example, a huge slice of the US IT industry's existence is threatened by NSA actions, but for the NSA it remains business as usual.
Because the engineers who physically control the hardware everyone uses have the rad the same SciFi you've read, and have therefore figured out what a seized AI would look like.
It would look like a non-seized AI - at least until everyone gets sent to the glue factories.
If the evil AI's success rate is below 100%
Why would its success rate be below 100%?
which you did.
Reading through your previous posts, I see you admit (in the same sense that you claim I did) that corporations don't have agency.
Yes, a corporation requires a human to act on its behalf to do anything, but similarly you require your muscle and neural cells to act on yours, and they in turn rely on molecular machines.
That is not the same at all, unless you are trying to claim that muscle and neural cells have agency. In other words, humans act in both the macroscopic case of corporations "doing anything" or the microscopic case of peoples' muscle and neural cells "acting". It remains the same fallacy of blaming the inanimate object, be it a corporation or a hammer for the actions of the people who use the object.
It does, however, mean that the legal system is capable of holding positions on various subjects, such as the agency of hammers, and acting according to them. So do companies, countries etc: they have goals they are trying to reach, an agenda they're pushing. Which is pretty much the definition of agency.
No, it means the people who use the system do. The people remain the ones with agency.
Your statement is nonsensical because if institutions have no agency, action cannot be ascribed to them, which you did.
I did no such thing.
You're ascribing actions to the US legal system, which implies it has agency.
Again, I implicitly ascribe actions to the people who maintain the system. The rules in question were created by people and enforced by people.
if you aren't going to leap to the "indoctrination and control" conclusion
The problem isn't when we leap to that conclusion, but rather when the people owning the database do. Sure, I can see the potential positives. I can also see the potential negatives. Those nix the project.