Climate Change

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Climate Change

Postby UFO Fever » 04 Aug 2019, 02:19

Strategus wrote:For the record, I am not a climate skeptic, but am mostly interested in what the above data is telling us. I didn't want a debate on climate change per se.


Yeah if you wanted a debate on climate change you would have created a thread in the “Debates” tab called “Climate Change” and you would have opened your initial post with the phrase “Up for serious debate.” Oh...
Silver Classicist.
Acting former bearer of the Talisman of Greater Scumminess :twisted:
Undefeated as scum*.
Dad, if you’re reading this, who the hell taught you how to use the forum?
User avatar
UFO Fever
 
Posts: 3617
Joined: 30 Nov 2010, 06:55
Location: Procrastinating
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1157)
All-game rating: (1163)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 04 Aug 2019, 09:15

UFO Fever wrote:
Strategus wrote:For the record, I am not a climate skeptic, but am mostly interested in what the above data is telling us. I didn't want a debate on climate change per se.


Yeah if you wanted a debate on climate change you would have created a thread in the “Debates” tab called “Climate Change” and you would have opened your initial post with the phrase “Up for serious debate.” Oh...

Try reading the post
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 04 Aug 2019, 10:25

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
Strategus wrote:So in a system with a huge number of variables, like co2 levels, continental positions, water and air flows, sun temp, axis, rotation etc, what should the graph look like?


Image

Well this one isn’t plotting against temperature, but it does plot the combined impact of the sun and CO2. If you paired the dark line above with the blue line from the original graph (and scaled the vertical dimensions appropriately), the correlation between sun, CO2, and temperature becomes somewhat more apparent.

This seems to show some correlation, mainly at the 300m years ago period. I believe this was snowball earth? The only period where there has been a stable period at the low end of the temperature range. Otherwise, stable periods are only at the high end. Where we are heading now.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 04 Aug 2019, 10:41

Correction. Not snowball earth. That was earlier than the chart, if it happened.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby V » 05 Aug 2019, 23:44

Thought I’d throw my usual comment into a climate change discussion to see what opinions come forth.
I recently read of an eminent scientist running calculations for the land area needed to grow sufficient food based on anticipated world population for 2050. Billions more people, millions of hectares of arable land required & the probable need for everyone to be vegetarian. I’m sure you’ve all seen similar...
Without doubting the veracity of what was said, the standout point for me was what was not said. The point that is almost never said. Too many damn people!
We already have way more people than could possibly be needed to grow sufficient food or make sufficient stuff for our needs. We can build anything, grow anything, we have machines. Millions of people could vanish overnight & we’d be just fine. In fact it would be a blessing when considering climate change & environmental protection.
So, whilst grappling with these challenging issues the simplest, most obvious & probably best solution, called population control, is never mentioned. It’s the elephant in the room that nobody dares discuss.
I’m not talking about anything that drastic, just the kind of two children policy that China had in place for many years. You could put financially penalise #3 so much that it wasn’t actually illegal, just very stupid. Governments are generally real good at conjuring up thieving financial penalties for both rich & poor. We could induce gradual population decline, use machines ever more replacing labour shortages & have everything under control real quick.
There would be more space for endangered animals & plants to have their precious habitats, less obnoxious humans (let’s face it a high % of them are very obnoxious). It’s almost certainly too good to be true. So it probably will be & we’ll have ever more of us around to screw things up faster, while debating what to do about climate change.
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
V
 
Posts: 652
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1718
All-game rating: 1754
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Climate Change

Postby beowulf7 » 06 Aug 2019, 04:21

Not a great example, China has abandoned the regulation of children because of the danger presented by an ever growing higher percentage of non-working old people requiring lots of care and being paid for by a reducing number of young people. This is what "gradual population decline" looks like - lots of old people dying slowly (unless you introduce a cull)

China has also suffered from a generation of only children who think that they deserve the world on a plate. Not to mention increased infant murder (girls mostly). Children over the limit are often "disguised" as foundlings or children of sterile family members. I'm not saying it did not stop a crazy population boost but I am saying that it might simply be exchanging one issue for a host of new ones. Plus - the age thing - China is now encouraging people to have more kids and there is a growing concern amongst the population that they may soon be punished (financially) if they have less than their quota of children...

In truth, birth rate is not the real issue - in most "rich" countries the birth rate is falling steadily. Indeed some countries (Japan, Italy) are having to incentivise having children to try and boost population. In Japan they are even being forced to accept immigration. There are whole towns in Japan made entirely of old people (not connected with migration to the cities) and some prisons are having to be rebuilt because of the number of old people deliberately getting arrested so they get free care.

There seems to be a link between high prosperity and later/less children. So if you want to reduce population then share the wealth around a bit better :)
User avatar
beowulf7
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:55
Location: Kent, UK
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (938)
All-game rating: (946)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby V » 06 Aug 2019, 05:28

beowulf7 wrote:Not a great example, China has abandoned the regulation of children because of the danger presented by an ever growing higher percentage of non-working old people requiring lots of care and being paid for by a reducing number of young people. This is what "gradual population decline" looks like - lots of old people dying slowly (unless you introduce a cull)

China has also suffered from a generation of only children who think that they deserve the world on a plate. Not to mention increased infant murder (girls mostly). Children over the limit are often "disguised" as foundlings or children of sterile family members. I'm not saying it did not stop a crazy population boost but I am saying that it might simply be exchanging one issue for a host of new ones. Plus - the age thing - China is now encouraging people to have more kids and there is a growing concern amongst the population that they may soon be punished (financially) if they have less than their quota of children...

In truth, birth rate is not the real issue - in most "rich" countries the birth rate is falling steadily. Indeed some countries (Japan, Italy) are having to incentivise having children to try and boost population. In Japan they are even being forced to accept immigration. There are whole towns in Japan made entirely of old people (not connected with migration to the cities) and some prisons are having to be rebuilt because of the number of old people deliberately getting arrested so they get free care.

There seems to be a link between high prosperity and later/less children. So if you want to reduce population then share the wealth around a bit better :)



All this is well known, but completely sidesteps the point that less humans would greatly assist in reducing our impact on the environment.

Yes, China abandoned population control. It wasn’t in their interests to continue a policy that handicapped them compared to other nations.
Yes, with our current economic systems few young supporting many old doesn’t work so well. That’s where machines could help. If we can produce vast amounts with few people an aging population doesn’t matter & will eventually help by dying off faster than they are replaced, increasing the rate of population decline.
Yes, there were issues with people wanting boys & folks screwing the system, like always. Cannot be insurmountable.
& yes, rich nations have fewer children & some are trying to stop that development,

But if climate change is so damn important that folks think everyone needs to change their entire lifestyle to avoid it, then let’s include less breeding. It would help more than nearly any other single policy. I never suggested it would be easy or palatable to many, but it would be smart.

This part is simple arithmetic. If we accept that human activity is causing climate change, less humans would help.
I pose the question that if there were only a few million of us (instead of many billion) is there any chance we could possibly be causing climate change? Almost certainly not. So let’s organise a serious reduction in population (not via a cull methinks) merely by less babies. If this is not an acceptable method (considering it could work brilliantly) then why not?
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
V
 
Posts: 652
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1718
All-game rating: 1754
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Climate Change

Postby beowulf7 » 07 Aug 2019, 03:33

Dear Dr Malthus.

Your dismissal of the China change as " due to being handicapped against other nations" is wrong (and sounds like "Fox speak"). They changed this policy because they understood it led to an aging population starving to death. You cannot simply dismiss this - any policy needs to be implementable. Even if you were right, your plan requires China and everyone else to enter into a global agreement for equitable population reduction. Really? We have spectacularly failed to reach that level of trust and co-operation on any other policy...

"We need less humans on the planet" I agree with. In fact, it is such a non-statement that I don't think you will find many that disagree. But you offer no route to get there. I could just easily say "we all need to consume less" however I suspect getting Americans (the largest per person consumers of resources on the planet) to dial-back their lifestyle is no easier than persuading the whole world to adopt a managed die-off. It's not your goal I disagree with. Far from sidestepping the issue I'm pointing out that you are stating the blindingly obvious and then offering impractical routes to get there.

"Machines would help" is a plot for a Sci-fi film - it's not a practical policy. (And where are you getting the power to run and manage all the wonder machines caring for the dying? How you going to get them to Bhutan, Bangladesh? Can you create all this super-tech without ripping up the rest of the earth for rare-earth minerals?) "Cannot be insurmountable" may be true - but you don't say how you will overcome them - "recalibrate the throbotron". "Considering it would work brilliantly" sounds like teen-thinking - "here's my idea and I have judged it flawless". I've seen countless things that were going to "work brilliantly" and did until they came in contact with the real world.

It would be worth you watching "Brimstone & Treacle" - it highlights an issue where a lofty and well-intentioned goal can lead to implementation actions that are less palatable. In that case it is armed units shooting down non-whites as part of a "send our coloured cousins home again" policy. But equally we can look how USA the "Champion of the free" has managed to make water-boarding, endless detention without trial and dropping nuclear bombs on cities into things deemed "morally acceptable". I fail to see how enforced population reduction works without a strong penal element, enforced sterilisation, baby-rationing (and therefore trading) and the like. You already suggested financial penalties - how are you going to stop poor people from breeding? I'm really not sure that option looks so much better than CO2 reduction policies...

You also ignored my point - well off families have less children so spreading the wealth would lead to less babies. But I don't see any well-off country agreeing to transfer cash/lifestyle to the poorer areas any time soon. Indeed your previous post already hints that you are unwilling to move towards a less consuming lifestyle. So given that the developing world will be unlikely adopt this first - can you really see the major powers agreeing to let their population grow old and die whilst the (and I quote) "shit-holes of the world" continue to expand? Real-politik. You would actually be making a rogue state MORE likely to encourage population growth (as a form of power grab). The increasingly rare young people would be increasingly valuable - do you want to pause and consider just what that might lead to? Kidnapping? Secret baby factories?? A "baby quota" trading market??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Sorry, but investing in your "great die off" solution is not actually going to deliver any changes (Other than through the wars it will generate). By all means lets agree to do something about population (education and wealth spreading) but let's not let over confidence in that "something" stop us doing the things we can actually do in the meantime.
User avatar
beowulf7
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:55
Location: Kent, UK
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (938)
All-game rating: (946)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 07 Aug 2019, 09:31

From my perspective, I believe the global temperature is set to rise to average 22 degrees, where it is stable. We are currently emerging from an ice age, and the planet has its own self regulatory system. We can't stop it. We didn't start it. It's gonna hapoen. So the plans should be to prepare for it. Trying to stop it is wasted effort. Saying we all do our bit will help is like saying, when faced with a tidal wave heading your way "if we all get a cup of water it will help".

In regards to population control, that's not gonna happen. Short of a pandemic (which is feasible), or an asteroid strike, we will continue to use up the natural resources of the planet, until there is nothing left. Ultimately we need new resources. They have to come from off-world. So we need to colonise other planets/moons etc to survive.

Btw, if the earth gets warmer and has more CO2, we will be in a bew Carboniferous epoch, and there will be lots of plants to feed us. We just might not make it
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1573
All-game rating: 1674
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby joe92 » 07 Aug 2019, 12:32

The one thing about climate change I don't get is people like schocker who think it's far more believable that the 99+% of climate scientists who agree on climate change are the ones that have been corrupted, and not the -1% who disagree and often have money tying them to shady corporations.

Strategus wrote:From my perspective, I believe the global temperature is set to rise to average 22 degrees, where it is stable. We are currently emerging from an ice age, and the planet has its own self regulatory system. We can't stop it. We didn't start it. It's gonna hapoen. So the plans should be to prepare for it. Trying to stop it is wasted effort. Saying we all do our bit will help is like saying, when faced with a tidal wave heading your way "if we all get a cup of water it will help".

Jeesh. More than 99% of climate scientists agree that human activity since the mid 20th century is the driving cause of climate change in today's world. Every time I read on it it goes something like this. "The earth has a natural greenhouse cycle that has changed many times through history. Presently human activity is accelerating that change a lot faster than it would have occurred naturally. Humans are causing the climate to change outside of it's natural cycle."

There are also other gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is the biggest one, CO2 is a biggie, there's methane, and others. You can't take one of the gases, CO2, pull up some random graph which has the millions of years on it's x-axis (human's have existed around 200,000 years so we're less than a pixel on that line), and say this somehow proves all those scientists wrong and you are right about human's not causing the current climate change. We increased the CO2 way beyond it's natural cycle. We've increased methane. And the rest. The higher temperatures that we are having is seeing more water evaporation and thus water vapour in the atmosphere. That's also heating the planet and at the same time causing more damaging storms. We're almost sprinting towards the cascade effect where we won't be able to undo the damage we've done. However, we are still in a position to stop the earth reaching that cascade effect. It needs real investment and collaboration between countries. Whether that can happen with the lunatics in charge at the moment is another point for discussion.
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Nothing

Platinum Classicist

Taking a break
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1106)
All-game rating: (1721)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron