At the end of the Permian era, 250m years ago, the global temperature rose by six degrees. That wiped out 95% of all life on earth.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. The big missing part of your assertion is that both the rise in temperature and the die-off of life were apparently triggered by huge volcanic eruptions whose scale has never been approached since. Volcanoes release other things than CO2 and some of those are very toxic in their own right (fluorine, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide).
And since an area of perhaps two thirds the size of Siberia (double the current, somewhat eroded extent of the Siberian traps) was covered by lava and above the Arctic Circle at the time, that likely led to a release of methane clathrates by a heating mechanism that couldn't happen today.
I answered yes, as "different economies" have different black markets, not that they would be smaller or larger.
But then we find that your answer is actually "no".
For Greece, their huge black market is tax evasion. In other countries, they have something else. China for example has piracy. Nigeria has a lot of scams. Somalia has pirates.
All which are very different than Greece's black market. Or for that matter, Sweden's black market.
I recognize that one can blur or refine an equivalence so that any two things can be conflated or distinguished. Here, I believe the differences matter a great deal. Keep in mind that the story is a claim about how greater food scarcity leads to societal instability. Since different economic systems can lead to vastly different ability to afford food, this means that economic systems effectively make food and other such things less scarce and more available.
Zero is the number you're looking for. There's the occasional showboating, but that hasn't actually translated into law at the state level.
while environmental concerns get brushed aside as irrelevant or not practical
Such as most of the press latching onto any attempt no matter how strained or contrived to link a scientific result to climate change? Really, I wonder how you could reach a conclusion like this. I doubt any mainstream media source, including relative outliers like Fox News, pays more attention to creationism advocacy than it does to environmental concerns.
Sure, but if all the effort of creating another Earth would actually be put to keep this one livable we would live in a paradise.
You have yet to provide evidence that any effort on mitigation of greenhouse gases needs to be put forth in order to keep this one livable. I was merely pointing out that your boundary isn't as hard a boundary as you thought it was.
What laws? I've heard of a few in the Middle East, but it doesn't appear at all prevalent. As to the "coverage", just ignore it. Surely, you have better things to do than paying obsessive attention to freaky intellectual minorities.
You can tell when you're on Slashdot. Way too many people are obsessed with libertarians.
As to your claim that one size fits all, it's worth noting that the countries on the list have vastly different economies, governments, and problems that they face. Greece for example has a huge amount of tax evasion.
The difference between nations is more in whether the people makes a fuss about it.
Let's consider an analogy. This would like claiming we have similar life issues and the only difference is that I'm making a fuss about my death from cancer in six months while you're not making a fuss about your 50 years of future life expectancy.
the entire article is about the relationship between food prices and uprisings
So what? Where's the correlations? Especially for countries like Sweden or France.
About the economic system, I don't know what your doubt is about my claim. Each country has its own variables, but the game is the same.
A system is not "the game". Everyone has wants and there are resources of varying degrees of scarcity which can be used to fulfill those wants. This economic game is the same for everyone, yes. But how they decide to meet those wants with those resources, the "economic system" in other words, can be very different.
Check the list, not all of them are third world countries.
Why is that list at all relevant? He hasn't even shown correlation between being on the list and some sort of sensitivity to food prices.
the same economic system.
So everyone has both Greece's huge black market economy and Sweden's relatively enlightened socialist policies? Or is it something like a lot of people buy food with money?
It's older than that. For example, there's the "palace economies" of the bronze age, for example, the pharaohs of Egypt. So the earliest systems of this kind probably are 4000 or more years old.
So your basic plan is for everybody to live in their cars?
Well, for a serious reply, where does everyone in the US currently live? Somehow, the US manages a very high rate of movement and yet not have everyone live out of their cars.
No, because it's going to happen in bursts, Katrina style.
[...]
But when the shit hit the fans there's gonna be slums all over for a very long time.
So do you have any reason for your claims? There's two obvious problems with these breezy assumptions. First, the developed world doesn't work that way. Even Hurricane Katrina didn't actually live up to the myth of Hurricane Katrina. Second, the rest of the world looks more like the developed world every day.
What that story is claiming is that the IPCC underestimated CO2 emissions. That's it. It's interesting that they did so and yet somehow overestimated the heating effect of that CO2 emissions over the past two decades despite the higher than expected input of CO2.
China evidently doesn't believe you else they would be doing something about it rather than increasing CO2 emissions year after year.
Do you think China is part of some environmentalist conspiracy?
Well, they're certainly benefiting economically from not having the climate change stuff applied to themselves. And it sure looks to me like they used the Kyoto Treaty as a weapon of economic warfare.
BILLIONS of people will be displaced if the water level rises even a moderate amount.
Over the course of centuries let us recall. The US alone has routine infrastructure capable of moving the entire population of the US every year (and 50 or so million people routinely use that infrastructure to move each year). And most land is valuable for what it can be used for in the next few decades, not it's supposed value a century from now.
So why didn't this methane go into the atmosphere when Earth warmed up 10k years ago and generate the 20 C heating effect back then? I think I'd take these concerns more seriously, if they weren't just huge fallacies - here, argument from ignorance while ignoring similar cases in the past that didn't generate the disaster scenario.
But we seem more interested in claiming the Permian never happened, and trying to wipe out most life on the planet.
I'd take such criticism more seriously, if we actually knew to a extensive and detailed degree what happened during that time and thus had a basis for that criticism.
It is possible that a 4C increase would lead to a 10C increase, wiping out nearly everyone and everything.
Except that it wouldn't. Even a relatively dramatic temperature increase like that leaves Earth quite habitable.
As to the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction (PTME), it is remarkable how ignorant scientists are and yet these claims keep being made. A few weeks ago, I had to endure a rather pointless argument with another slashdotter who kept claiming that today's CO2 growth rates were at least an order of magnitude greater than those during the PTME. I pointed out that the claim was made on the basis of two data points. He then claimed a dozen data points (ignoring that most fell outside of the most critical regions).
Basing such claims on a handful of data points, without an actual understanding of what was going on (volcanoes don't just produce CO2), ignoring the magnitude of the PTME (to emit as much CO2 as was measured (which may in turn be very different from the actual amounts emitted) would take us several millennia), and ignoring the variable nature of volcanoes (an eruption which is constant for 60k years is going to be far less damaging than one that erupts in great bursts), is just pointless and profoundly unscientific.
Slashdot Mirror
The banks rely on the public being ignorant about the workings of finance
The ignorant part of the public doesn't run successful businesses.
At the end of the Permian era, 250m years ago, the global temperature rose by six degrees. That wiped out 95% of all life on earth.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. The big missing part of your assertion is that both the rise in temperature and the die-off of life were apparently triggered by huge volcanic eruptions whose scale has never been approached since. Volcanoes release other things than CO2 and some of those are very toxic in their own right (fluorine, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide).
And since an area of perhaps two thirds the size of Siberia (double the current, somewhat eroded extent of the Siberian traps) was covered by lava and above the Arctic Circle at the time, that likely led to a release of methane clathrates by a heating mechanism that couldn't happen today.
I answered yes, as "different economies" have different black markets, not that they would be smaller or larger.
But then we find that your answer is actually "no".
For Greece, their huge black market is tax evasion. In other countries, they have something else. China for example has piracy. Nigeria has a lot of scams. Somalia has pirates.
All which are very different than Greece's black market. Or for that matter, Sweden's black market.
I recognize that one can blur or refine an equivalence so that any two things can be conflated or distinguished. Here, I believe the differences matter a great deal. Keep in mind that the story is a claim about how greater food scarcity leads to societal instability. Since different economic systems can lead to vastly different ability to afford food, this means that economic systems effectively make food and other such things less scarce and more available.
That's my answer to the question "Sure, why not?"
Some other AC started talking about libertarians.
So what? Nobody else was in the thread.
Maybe he drives a supertanker on the highway. At least the gas tank would be appropriately sized.
Bailing out the banks was not optional.
Bankruptcy works here too. And it's more effective at preventing future excuses for bailouts.
I'm sorry, but I don't see a reason why I should necessarily need the services of a banker to run my company.
Ignorance is common trait of man throughout history and its primary symptom is the inability to see and understand.
so that the one you find useful wasn't the one taking huge risks
That bank isn't taking huge risks with slapout's bank account due to FDIC insurance. Moral hazard rears its ugly mug once again.
There's a fair number in the USA too
Zero is the number you're looking for. There's the occasional showboating, but that hasn't actually translated into law at the state level.
while environmental concerns get brushed aside as irrelevant or not practical
Such as most of the press latching onto any attempt no matter how strained or contrived to link a scientific result to climate change? Really, I wonder how you could reach a conclusion like this. I doubt any mainstream media source, including relative outliers like Fox News, pays more attention to creationism advocacy than it does to environmental concerns.
Sure, but if all the effort of creating another Earth would actually be put to keep this one livable we would live in a paradise.
You have yet to provide evidence that any effort on mitigation of greenhouse gases needs to be put forth in order to keep this one livable. I was merely pointing out that your boundary isn't as hard a boundary as you thought it was.
and laws trying to force people to teach that
What laws? I've heard of a few in the Middle East, but it doesn't appear at all prevalent. As to the "coverage", just ignore it. Surely, you have better things to do than paying obsessive attention to freaky intellectual minorities.
...libertarians...libertarians...
You can tell when you're on Slashdot. Way too many people are obsessed with libertarians.
As to your claim that one size fits all, it's worth noting that the countries on the list have vastly different economies, governments, and problems that they face. Greece for example has a huge amount of tax evasion.
The difference between nations is more in whether the people makes a fuss about it.
Let's consider an analogy. This would like claiming we have similar life issues and the only difference is that I'm making a fuss about my death from cancer in six months while you're not making a fuss about your 50 years of future life expectancy.
the entire article is about the relationship between food prices and uprisings
So what? Where's the correlations? Especially for countries like Sweden or France.
About the economic system, I don't know what your doubt is about my claim. Each country has its own variables, but the game is the same.
A system is not "the game". Everyone has wants and there are resources of varying degrees of scarcity which can be used to fulfill those wants. This economic game is the same for everyone, yes. But how they decide to meet those wants with those resources, the "economic system" in other words, can be very different.
Check the list, not all of them are third world countries.
Why is that list at all relevant? He hasn't even shown correlation between being on the list and some sort of sensitivity to food prices.
the same economic system.
So everyone has both Greece's huge black market economy and Sweden's relatively enlightened socialist policies? Or is it something like a lot of people buy food with money?
It's older than that. For example, there's the "palace economies" of the bronze age, for example, the pharaohs of Egypt. So the earliest systems of this kind probably are 4000 or more years old.
So your basic plan is for everybody to live in their cars?
Well, for a serious reply, where does everyone in the US currently live? Somehow, the US manages a very high rate of movement and yet not have everyone live out of their cars.
No, because it's going to happen in bursts, Katrina style.
[...]
But when the shit hit the fans there's gonna be slums all over for a very long time.
So do you have any reason for your claims? There's two obvious problems with these breezy assumptions. First, the developed world doesn't work that way. Even Hurricane Katrina didn't actually live up to the myth of Hurricane Katrina. Second, the rest of the world looks more like the developed world every day.
What that story is claiming is that the IPCC underestimated CO2 emissions. That's it. It's interesting that they did so and yet somehow overestimated the heating effect of that CO2 emissions over the past two decades despite the higher than expected input of CO2.
China has the most to lose with global warming.
China evidently doesn't believe you else they would be doing something about it rather than increasing CO2 emissions year after year.
Do you think China is part of some environmentalist conspiracy?
Well, they're certainly benefiting economically from not having the climate change stuff applied to themselves. And it sure looks to me like they used the Kyoto Treaty as a weapon of economic warfare.
BILLIONS of people will be displaced if the water level rises even a moderate amount.
Over the course of centuries let us recall. The US alone has routine infrastructure capable of moving the entire population of the US every year (and 50 or so million people routinely use that infrastructure to move each year). And most land is valuable for what it can be used for in the next few decades, not it's supposed value a century from now.
Couple with the fact that the human population is scheduled to double in the next generation or two
It's not. Current projections are that global population caps about 50% higher than today.
It's also worth noting that the countries which have the population problem don't have the nukes.
So why didn't this methane go into the atmosphere when Earth warmed up 10k years ago and generate the 20 C heating effect back then? I think I'd take these concerns more seriously, if they weren't just huge fallacies - here, argument from ignorance while ignoring similar cases in the past that didn't generate the disaster scenario.
But we seem more interested in claiming the Permian never happened, and trying to wipe out most life on the planet.
I'd take such criticism more seriously, if we actually knew to a extensive and detailed degree what happened during that time and thus had a basis for that criticism.
There are certain boundaries and one is that there's only one Earth.
That's a boundary we're quite capable of crossing. Making more Earths is merely very difficult.
It is possible that a 4C increase would lead to a 10C increase, wiping out nearly everyone and everything.
Except that it wouldn't. Even a relatively dramatic temperature increase like that leaves Earth quite habitable.
As to the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction (PTME), it is remarkable how ignorant scientists are and yet these claims keep being made. A few weeks ago, I had to endure a rather pointless argument with another slashdotter who kept claiming that today's CO2 growth rates were at least an order of magnitude greater than those during the PTME. I pointed out that the claim was made on the basis of two data points. He then claimed a dozen data points (ignoring that most fell outside of the most critical regions).
Basing such claims on a handful of data points, without an actual understanding of what was going on (volcanoes don't just produce CO2), ignoring the magnitude of the PTME (to emit as much CO2 as was measured (which may in turn be very different from the actual amounts emitted) would take us several millennia), and ignoring the variable nature of volcanoes (an eruption which is constant for 60k years is going to be far less damaging than one that erupts in great bursts), is just pointless and profoundly unscientific.
You still don't get what base load actually is?
Why do you keep asking that question? You can answer it yourself though I notice you never do.
And sorry: a country like Denmark or for that matter Germany always has enough wind.
Which is simply wrong. When Denmark or Germany generate less wind power than their minimum base load need, then they don't have enough wind.