That's the nice thing about a sample return mission like the one that's been proposed. It'll confirm your above opinion of the evidence. Something that looks like gypsum sand to a rover, may well be. But if it looks like gypsum sand in a lab on Earth, then that's a vastly more definitive piece of evidence.
When you put money above dumping waste heat to the atmosphere (and the problems that will eventually cause)
Again, the problem here is that using that waste heat may cost more in whatever you value, money, environmental dogoodness, or whatever, that it is not worth the effort. Waste heat is easy to dissipate. It is not so easy to use.
And it's a waste of your time to put a moral connotation on money. Money is just a unit of exchange for things we value. A process which loses money, means that someone loses some ability to trade for things they value. One doesn't have to be a "cheap greedy fuck" to be concerned about activities which just lose money without doing anything useful enough in return.
Putting cycle paths alone doesn't encourage people out of their cars*, you have to make the car journey less convenient
Another problem with planned cities is forcing people to adapt to the city rather than the other way around. I see it a bit like software, if you have to break the functionality of the thing in order for it to be used as intended, then maybe you should change your intent instead.
how long do you think you'll stand a chance against armored vehicles with non-lethal sound weapons, lethal automatic weapons, mines, RPGs, airstrikes, Apache helicopters, tanks, HMVs, navy ships firing at you from 5 miles away, SWAT teams, etc...
I think it'd be over pretty fast. After all, the rebellion would have that equipment (if nothing else, it'd come from the military units defecting to their side). And one needs sound logistics to play with those toys for more than a few days. Logistics is easy for a fully armed society in full rebellion to completely disrupt. For example, no fuel means no working armored vehicles or planes.
I don't think we can use rules, laws and regulations to keep them in line. They need to be good people.
Then you've failed. This Machiavelli quote summarizes my opinion of that:
Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.
"Sustainable" doesn't mean "has no impact on the environment". For example, breeding von Neumann machines and converting the entire non-stellar mass of the Solar System to a Dyson cloud is sustainable, but has a wee bit of an environmental impact.
The documentary in question may have given them an unfair shake, but I doubt there would be a thriving Brasilia, if it weren't for the substantial resources of Brazil propping it up. I think that's a caveat that attaches itself to a lot of these projects - they work, but only if they have a large economy to leech off of.
You do realize that there have been many successful planned cities, including the capital of Brazil.
And do you have any examples of these? The main problem with centrally planned capitols is that they tend to have very poor containment. You don't want that crap on you.
I think we'll find that these 1 in 700 events never were 1 in 700 or perhaps that there are many hundreds of 1 in 700 hurricane events. I find this sort of research to be remarkably flawed logically and statistically.
In fact, the only use I can see for this research is to provide an easy talking point for extreme weather advocates. Sandy was a 1 in 700 year hurricane therefore extreme weather from "climate change" is real.
First, the research extrapolates to a 700 year period from data that at best can be considered to cover 150 years. Of that period we have well defined hurricane tracks for perhaps 80 years. And it's only with meteorological satellites in the past 40 or so years that we've seen hurricanes from birth to death. There are plenty of stochastic models that will give you whatever outcome you desire.
Hurricanes with Sandy's characteristics may have always been, for example, 1 in a century hurricanes due to dynamics that the stochastic model above completely fails to anticipate. But we had so little data that this is the first one we have seen with these characteristics.
Second, we are ignoring the consequences of observation bias. Given the many hurricanes that have happened, I bet we'll find that most have tracks that would be similarly infrequent. Consider the case of flipping a fair coin ten times. No matter what the outcome of heads and tails in sequence, it will be a 1 in 1,024 event. There are a fair number of hurricanes that hit the mid-Atlantic states. Each one may take an infrequent path. I see nothing unusual in hurricane Sandy being rare or for that matter not particularly rare.
The key is that they cost money rather than make money to implement. One doesn't have to be a "cheap greedy fuck" in order to want solutions to yield more value than they cost.
I imagine the idea is that you have a profitable process that generates waste heat. If this becomes cheap enough, it'd be a way to make a few more nickles on what you already have.
The US Northwest and its analogue, British Columbia on the Canadian side are large exporters of power to elsewhere in the US. If they're reporting excess power, then that's an indication that a large portion of the US is experiencing that condition over the time period in question.
So 10,000 years for an increase gives a lot more time for adaption. Our temperature increases could be over a much shorter period
Or it might never even come close. There's too much speculation and not enough fact.
So, the turnover time for the "natural sinks" to reabsorb the CO2 is a very long time
Or carbon dioxide content didn't drive the end of the period. But as I remarked, that is evidence that plant growth does in natural environments increase in the presence of higher levels of carbon dioxide.
The point being that it is not simply the case that we don't need to worry about it as the plants will just take up the CO2. They eventually will but not before mass-extinction of species.
So what? My take is that there will that mass extinction of species not matter if there is substantial global warming or not due to habitat destruction and possibly social breakdown during human die-offs.
Also keep in mind how disruptive this would be given the human population, stressed food supplies (eg fish), political issues of mass migration of people etc.
There's no evidence that global warming is going to be significantly disruptive to human populations compared to the usual problems, particularly among the human populations who would be inclined to do anything about global warming. For example, two alleged benefits are access to land in the far North and navigability of the Arctic Ocean. The latter would be a significant boost to global trade which I think would outweigh the modest increases in sea level. And both affect the relatively affluent Northern hemisphere more.
The whole point of my entry into this thread was that global warming was blamed for mass extinction even though the most important factors in that have nothing to do with global warming. In addition to habitat destruction, you have zoos and the fact that fossil-based observation of extinction is vastly different than modern observation (this results in a tendency to underplay the severity of past mass extinction events compared to now). Human harm wasn't even considered at the time.
This sort of skewed risk analysis is typical of global warming propaganda. There's a huge tendency to blame global warming for large existing factors while downplaying its actual known effects. Sometimes such as in this thread, actual evidence has been ignored or claimed a "myth".
You won't get China, the US, or India on board with global warming mitigation until you can show clear evidence of great harm. That hasn't been done.
Plants hovering up the CO2 is a common Denier Myth. Do you have cites for how that works?
Well, we wouldn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere in the first place, if plants weren't hovering CO2. Second, it takes work to separate CO2 from atmosphere. As the concentration of CO2 increases, plants use less work to extract and use CO2.
As to your link, I find it interesting how much effort is wasted on making up evidence that elevated CO2 levels are bad for plants. For example, a lot of effort goes into claiming that CO2 can damage plants (linking to a study on the Paleoceneâ"Eocene Thermal Maximum which was a large and sudden release of vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, possibly originally as methane) by increasing insect feeding on plants, but what is ignored is that insect feeding accelerates the replacement of ill-fit plants with more successful ones.
Plant growth actually increased during that period of time (this article describes some of the fossil record and interprets it as a time of great evolutionary change and mobility of organisms.
For mankind, if you give a rat's ass about that miserable apex predator, perhaps not so much. At 7+ billion annoying human beings (that number must give some marketing people prolonged orgasms) we're crammed up at the edge of carrying capacity of the environment. So it's not going to take much more change to get some (billions) of people in significant trouble.
Climate happens to be well down the list of things that are going to cause trouble here. Poverty, overpopulation, and a lot of poor practices that are far more destructive than emitting carbon dioxide (such as corruption, pollution, poor water management and farming practices).
This bothers a lot of tender souls, especially those persons who wonder what happens when large swaths of the equatorial band on the planet become less habitable. You know, that large band where 70% of the planet's human infestation resides. That group of people who might resent being starved and dehydrated to death. Some of those people have heard of the aphorism 'the veneer of civilization is thin, indeed' and wonders what happens when the coating gets scraped off.
There probably would be a die-off. I don't see addressing the alleged harm of global warming helping prevent that situation. Too much prosperity is dependent on the use of fossil fuels right now. And for all the talk, the alleged problems of global warming just aren't that bad compared to the other problems that humanity has.
How does "Once all trapped CO2 will be released" [in the future] equate to "400 PPM" which we have already past.
How can we release all trapped CO2? Most of it is locked in stone - limestone. As I recall, toxicity problems start appearing around 5,000 ppm which is still a bit away, especially if plant life starts hovering up that excess CO2.
The title of the linked article is "Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?" It is worth noting here that most existing animals and plants already have adapted to the considerable global warming that followed the end of the last glacial period. What is different this time is the widespread habitat destruction of a global human presence.
So my view is that we already know that the answer to the question is a qualified "yes" (some organisms don't have other places to go). The existing plants and animals can for the most part adapt to global warming, if they have some options of long term migration. In that light, I think this particular alleged harm of global warming could be substantially mitigated by creating connected zones of wild areas.
Also, there's no discussion of harm to human society which IMHO should be valued higher than species preservation. Here, I think the argument is far weaker because the usual proposed solutions (radically cutting back on carbon emissions) would cause substantial harm to poor people throughout the world. It also has little support in the developing world which is currently responsible for most greenhouse gas emission increases.
It's also worth noting that we're on track to fail to achieve even the low end of the temperature range increase (2C by 2100) claimed by that link. There has been a consistent bias to overestimate the effects of global warming. I think it has to do with the considerable public spending that can be released if it is considered a significant and urgent danger.
Martin and Zimmerman have injuries consistent with Martin attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a variety of head injuries - a broken nose and gashes on the rear of his head. Martin had bloody knuckles and a gunshot wound.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the nice thing about a sample return mission like the one that's been proposed. It'll confirm your above opinion of the evidence. Something that looks like gypsum sand to a rover, may well be. But if it looks like gypsum sand in a lab on Earth, then that's a vastly more definitive piece of evidence.
When you put money above dumping waste heat to the atmosphere (and the problems that will eventually cause)
Again, the problem here is that using that waste heat may cost more in whatever you value, money, environmental dogoodness, or whatever, that it is not worth the effort. Waste heat is easy to dissipate. It is not so easy to use.
And it's a waste of your time to put a moral connotation on money. Money is just a unit of exchange for things we value. A process which loses money, means that someone loses some ability to trade for things they value. One doesn't have to be a "cheap greedy fuck" to be concerned about activities which just lose money without doing anything useful enough in return.
I would imagine that the US military has more than a few days' worth of reserve fuel
Not in their tanks or their aircraft. That has to get to those vehicles first. Supply lines are the big weakness of a US-style military.
Putting cycle paths alone doesn't encourage people out of their cars*, you have to make the car journey less convenient
Another problem with planned cities is forcing people to adapt to the city rather than the other way around. I see it a bit like software, if you have to break the functionality of the thing in order for it to be used as intended, then maybe you should change your intent instead.
how long do you think you'll stand a chance against armored vehicles with non-lethal sound weapons, lethal automatic weapons, mines, RPGs, airstrikes, Apache helicopters, tanks, HMVs, navy ships firing at you from 5 miles away, SWAT teams, etc...
I think it'd be over pretty fast. After all, the rebellion would have that equipment (if nothing else, it'd come from the military units defecting to their side). And one needs sound logistics to play with those toys for more than a few days. Logistics is easy for a fully armed society in full rebellion to completely disrupt. For example, no fuel means no working armored vehicles or planes.
I don't think we can use rules, laws and regulations to keep them in line. They need to be good people.
Then you've failed. This Machiavelli quote summarizes my opinion of that:
Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.
"Sustainable" doesn't mean "has no impact on the environment". For example, breeding von Neumann machines and converting the entire non-stellar mass of the Solar System to a Dyson cloud is sustainable, but has a wee bit of an environmental impact.
The documentary in question may have given them an unfair shake, but I doubt there would be a thriving Brasilia, if it weren't for the substantial resources of Brazil propping it up. I think that's a caveat that attaches itself to a lot of these projects - they work, but only if they have a large economy to leech off of.
You do realize that there have been many successful planned cities, including the capital of Brazil.
And do you have any examples of these? The main problem with centrally planned capitols is that they tend to have very poor containment. You don't want that crap on you.
Forgot what about Katrina? New Orleans gets hit by hurricanes. It got hit by a hurricane. There's nothing to "forget".
I think we'll find that these 1 in 700 events never were 1 in 700 or perhaps that there are many hundreds of 1 in 700 hurricane events. I find this sort of research to be remarkably flawed logically and statistically.
In fact, the only use I can see for this research is to provide an easy talking point for extreme weather advocates. Sandy was a 1 in 700 year hurricane therefore extreme weather from "climate change" is real.
First, the research extrapolates to a 700 year period from data that at best can be considered to cover 150 years. Of that period we have well defined hurricane tracks for perhaps 80 years. And it's only with meteorological satellites in the past 40 or so years that we've seen hurricanes from birth to death. There are plenty of stochastic models that will give you whatever outcome you desire.
Hurricanes with Sandy's characteristics may have always been, for example, 1 in a century hurricanes due to dynamics that the stochastic model above completely fails to anticipate. But we had so little data that this is the first one we have seen with these characteristics.
Second, we are ignoring the consequences of observation bias. Given the many hurricanes that have happened, I bet we'll find that most have tracks that would be similarly infrequent. Consider the case of flipping a fair coin ten times. No matter what the outcome of heads and tails in sequence, it will be a 1 in 1,024 event. There are a fair number of hurricanes that hit the mid-Atlantic states. Each one may take an infrequent path. I see nothing unusual in hurricane Sandy being rare or for that matter not particularly rare.
The key is that they cost money rather than make money to implement. One doesn't have to be a "cheap greedy fuck" in order to want solutions to yield more value than they cost.
I imagine the idea is that you have a profitable process that generates waste heat. If this becomes cheap enough, it'd be a way to make a few more nickles on what you already have.
The US Northwest and its analogue, British Columbia on the Canadian side are large exporters of power to elsewhere in the US. If they're reporting excess power, then that's an indication that a large portion of the US is experiencing that condition over the time period in question.
So 10,000 years for an increase gives a lot more time for adaption. Our temperature increases could be over a much shorter period
Or it might never even come close. There's too much speculation and not enough fact.
So, the turnover time for the "natural sinks" to reabsorb the CO2 is a very long time
Or carbon dioxide content didn't drive the end of the period. But as I remarked, that is evidence that plant growth does in natural environments increase in the presence of higher levels of carbon dioxide.
The point being that it is not simply the case that we don't need to worry about it as the plants will just take up the CO2. They eventually will but not before mass-extinction of species.
So what? My take is that there will that mass extinction of species not matter if there is substantial global warming or not due to habitat destruction and possibly social breakdown during human die-offs.
Also keep in mind how disruptive this would be given the human population, stressed food supplies (eg fish), political issues of mass migration of people etc.
There's no evidence that global warming is going to be significantly disruptive to human populations compared to the usual problems, particularly among the human populations who would be inclined to do anything about global warming. For example, two alleged benefits are access to land in the far North and navigability of the Arctic Ocean. The latter would be a significant boost to global trade which I think would outweigh the modest increases in sea level. And both affect the relatively affluent Northern hemisphere more.
The whole point of my entry into this thread was that global warming was blamed for mass extinction even though the most important factors in that have nothing to do with global warming. In addition to habitat destruction, you have zoos and the fact that fossil-based observation of extinction is vastly different than modern observation (this results in a tendency to underplay the severity of past mass extinction events compared to now). Human harm wasn't even considered at the time.
This sort of skewed risk analysis is typical of global warming propaganda. There's a huge tendency to blame global warming for large existing factors while downplaying its actual known effects. Sometimes such as in this thread, actual evidence has been ignored or claimed a "myth".
You won't get China, the US, or India on board with global warming mitigation until you can show clear evidence of great harm. That hasn't been done.
Ants.
They don't have societies beyond the scale of limited cooperation between nests. Bird migration would be at least on the right spatial scale.
Plants hovering up the CO2 is a common Denier Myth. Do you have cites for how that works?
Well, we wouldn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere in the first place, if plants weren't hovering CO2. Second, it takes work to separate CO2 from atmosphere. As the concentration of CO2 increases, plants use less work to extract and use CO2.
As to your link, I find it interesting how much effort is wasted on making up evidence that elevated CO2 levels are bad for plants. For example, a lot of effort goes into claiming that CO2 can damage plants (linking to a study on the Paleoceneâ"Eocene Thermal Maximum which was a large and sudden release of vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, possibly originally as methane) by increasing insect feeding on plants, but what is ignored is that insect feeding accelerates the replacement of ill-fit plants with more successful ones.
Plant growth actually increased during that period of time (this article describes some of the fossil record and interprets it as a time of great evolutionary change and mobility of organisms.
For mankind, if you give a rat's ass about that miserable apex predator, perhaps not so much. At 7+ billion annoying human beings (that number must give some marketing people prolonged orgasms) we're crammed up at the edge of carrying capacity of the environment. So it's not going to take much more change to get some (billions) of people in significant trouble.
Climate happens to be well down the list of things that are going to cause trouble here. Poverty, overpopulation, and a lot of poor practices that are far more destructive than emitting carbon dioxide (such as corruption, pollution, poor water management and farming practices).
This bothers a lot of tender souls, especially those persons who wonder what happens when large swaths of the equatorial band on the planet become less habitable. You know, that large band where 70% of the planet's human infestation resides. That group of people who might resent being starved and dehydrated to death. Some of those people have heard of the aphorism 'the veneer of civilization is thin, indeed' and wonders what happens when the coating gets scraped off.
There probably would be a die-off. I don't see addressing the alleged harm of global warming helping prevent that situation. Too much prosperity is dependent on the use of fossil fuels right now. And for all the talk, the alleged problems of global warming just aren't that bad compared to the other problems that humanity has.
How does "Once all trapped CO2 will be released" [in the future] equate to "400 PPM" which we have already past.
How can we release all trapped CO2? Most of it is locked in stone - limestone. As I recall, toxicity problems start appearing around 5,000 ppm which is still a bit away, especially if plant life starts hovering up that excess CO2.
Maybe by the time we are done with this planet, P-T will look like a cakewalk in comparison.
Well, our "mass extinction" has already resulted in a global, industrial society so it's well ahead of the P-T extinction already.
But the indications are not great.
The title of the linked article is "Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?" It is worth noting here that most existing animals and plants already have adapted to the considerable global warming that followed the end of the last glacial period. What is different this time is the widespread habitat destruction of a global human presence.
So my view is that we already know that the answer to the question is a qualified "yes" (some organisms don't have other places to go). The existing plants and animals can for the most part adapt to global warming, if they have some options of long term migration. In that light, I think this particular alleged harm of global warming could be substantially mitigated by creating connected zones of wild areas.
Also, there's no discussion of harm to human society which IMHO should be valued higher than species preservation. Here, I think the argument is far weaker because the usual proposed solutions (radically cutting back on carbon emissions) would cause substantial harm to poor people throughout the world. It also has little support in the developing world which is currently responsible for most greenhouse gas emission increases.
It's also worth noting that we're on track to fail to achieve even the low end of the temperature range increase (2C by 2100) claimed by that link. There has been a consistent bias to overestimate the effects of global warming. I think it has to do with the considerable public spending that can be released if it is considered a significant and urgent danger.
but we do know that the killer stalked the young man on some specious racist grounds
Actually, we don't know that. You are asserting that without evidence.
How do you even know Martin attacked Zimmerman?
Martin and Zimmerman have injuries consistent with Martin attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a variety of head injuries - a broken nose and gashes on the rear of his head. Martin had bloody knuckles and a gunshot wound.
At some point if you decide to ignore the advice of a 911 operator
The operator in question has no legal authority and didn't actually advise Zimmerman to stop following Martin.