On how the climate is going to murder us (or not).

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:57 pm UTC

bbctol wrote:Furthering on Akula: Yeah, what the hell? We can see the collapse of the Larsen Ice shelf, yes. Katrina, however, was not an especially large hurricane. The destruction it caused was due to luck (it went right through New ORleans) and human stupidity (we decided that cities under sea level don't need reeeeaally high levees). And the TSUNAMI!? You could make some sort of BS-type case that rising sealevels added, somehow, to the destruction (which would be probably false). But there is NO WAY you can say global warming caused the tsunami.


And even with the Larsen Ice shelf, I tink I remember reading that Antartica has actually been gaining ice mass.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:20 pm UTC

Akula wrote:
And even with the Larsen Ice shelf, I tink I remember reading that Antartica has actually been gaining ice mass.



'Expected responses of the ice sheets to climate warming
are both growth in thickness of the inland ice areas, due to
increasing precipitation, and thinning near the margins, due
to increasing surface melting.'



http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/publication ... s_2005.pdf


Image

User avatar
apricity
almost grown-up but not quite
Posts: 3983
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:28 am UTC
Location: Probably North Dakota or something

Postby apricity » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:25 pm UTC

As I wrote earlier...

lanicita wrote:There's not enough evidence to PROVE it yet, but many climatologists agree that it looks like hurricanes are indeed increasing in intensity, and that could definitely be due to global warming, considering the fact that the intensity of a hurricane depends strongly on the heat of condensation from the water it's over, so if the temperature of the ocean is rising, the hurricane can and likely does pick up speed and intensity.


It's a theory that doesn't have a lot of evidence backing it yet, considering how little time has really passed and how few years of records we have to look at. But if, for example, you look at Katrina, it got MUCH more intense as it passed over the Gulf of Mexico, which has warmer waters. That's when it became category 5. That is pretty good evidence for the theory that if the oceans warm, hurricanes COULD get more intense. Katrina, I think, was more like a model than anything else, for what could happen if/when hurricanes really increase in intensity.

Even if you just look at that whole hurricane season though, there were 28 named storms, 15 became hurricanes, and 4 were Category 5. It was the worst on record. It's not the strongest evidence in the world considering we haven't been recording hurricane seasons for very long, but it's still troubling. What if that becomes the norm for hurricane seasons? If the oceans heat up like it's been projected they will, it's possible.

At this point, I've got to say that the developments we've seen in weather so far are just serving as models, ideas of what could keep happening. I'm also willing to admit that I'm definitely biased... I've seen An Inconvenient Truth and The Day After Tomorrow (ahhh the latter was a joke, I know it's not real, don't kill me!), and I just really love weather, especially extreme weather, so the intense stuff probably influences me more than it should. Still, I love discussing it, and it is still my view that this is just the beginning of the extreme stuff that we're going to start seeing more and more as global warming persists.
LE4d wrote:have you considered becoming an electron

it takes just a little practice to learn to be
(she/her/hers)

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:02 pm UTC

Akula, bbctol: Did you guys read my first post, and lani's response?

Anyways. Weather has always been difficult to predict, especially far in the future. In 2006 not a single hurricane made it to the U.S. They all were reduced to tropical storms before landfall. So how is the weather getting worse again? It's just one year, but still. I think blaming global warming for Katrina is a bit of media propaganda. The hurricane could have happened at any time, and New Orleans would never have been prepared for it. But it suits some people's purposes to claim that global warming means all kinds of killer storms are coming so if you drive an SUV, basically you're killing people because you are directly causing hurricanes. It makes for a better story for us to think that the End Times are coming.
It makes you wonder why there is a reconstruction effort in Louisiana. If it were me, I'd move to Ohio. No hurricanes there!

The entire world isn't exactly 1 degree warmer than it was last year. Everywhere is a different temperature than it was one year ago. Making conclusions without any real data smacks of fear mongering to me.

In Canada, where I live, we've had record snowfalls in the mountains. Early season skiing was some of the best on record. In February we almost beat the local record for snowfall. Was that caused by global warming too? Or is it all just a really complicated system that no one understands, and so no one should be making conclusive statements about it?

By the way, bbctol, the polar bear population in Canada has been growing steadily for some time. In fact, it's starting to become a problem in the northern communities, as the polar bears start to come south, they OH MY GOD IT'S BREAKING IN RUN! RUN DAMM+++++++++++++++++++
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:15 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:The entire world isn't exactly 1 degree warmer than it was last year. Everywhere is a different temperature than it was one year ago. Making conclusions without any real data smacks of fear mongering to me.


Global warming =/= uniform temperature change.

Agree with you about the media + fear mongering, and with the bits about Katrina. However, the data speaks for itself, and should not be confused with the media.

People get so caught up on 1 element of things (be it DOOMSDAY or otherwise) that they forget to look into the science behind it. And the science, namely combined radiative forcing, adds up to global climate change.


EDITED to add:

space_raptor wrote:In Canada, where I live, we've had record snowfalls in the mountains. Early season skiing was some of the best on record. In February we almost beat the local record for snowfall. Was that caused by global warming too?


Quite possible - See the PDF I posted above, on ice mass increases due to increased precipitation, caused by climate change.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:18 am UTC

That is why they stopped calling it Global Warming and started calling it Global Climate Change.

Because climate is a complex system, and forcibly changing something (like global average temperature), can change everything in wierd and complex and non-intuitive ways. Like actually making it colder in places.

Or stopping the gulf stream.

And other such stuff.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:11 am UTC

Which is why I don't buy what a lot of climatologists are selling...

They are not actually conducting anything resembling science, they're pissing in the dark. Climatology has never yielded an accurate prediction beyond a few years, and even inside that threshold their record is spotty. And guess what? Their still using the same methods.

Climatology is to meteorology as astrology is to astronomy.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:31 am UTC

Belial wrote: Or stopping the gulf stream.


I think the day after tommorow was a good movie too.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:22 pm UTC

Fluff wrote:People get so caught up on 1 element of things (be it DOOMSDAY or otherwise) that they forget to look into the science behind it. And the science, namely combined radiative forcing, adds up to global climate change.

EDITED to add:

space_raptor wrote:In Canada, where I live, we've had record snowfalls in the mountains. Early season skiing was some of the best on record. In February we almost beat the local record for snowfall. Was that caused by global warming too?


Quite possible - See the PDF I posted above, on ice mass increases due to increased precipitation, caused by climate change.


See, if somebody told me to panic because the weather is going to change tomorrow, I would laugh.

Saying that "climate change" is happening, doesn't strike too much fear into my heart. It's getting warmer! Also colder! Huh?

If "climate change" means more snow in the mountains, then I'm all for it. ;)

Seriously though. There are people who don't necessarily disbelieve the climate change guys, they just think there should be priorities. I think I'm beginning to fall into their camp.

I think we should reduce CO2 levels. Bring on the nuclear power.
I think we should reduce pollution. Bring on the catalytic converters and the public transit.

I think this is a fair position to have. I don't think we necessarily have to all go back to living in small, self-sufficient communities that run on wind power. I am skeptical of any story that claims disaster is coming, just because I think the media is looking for the crazies cause they make for better stories.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:00 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
Belial wrote: Or stopping the gulf stream.


I think the day after tommorow was a good movie too.


lol... if utterly laughable from a science perspective

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:30 pm UTC

Which is why I don't buy what a lot of climatologists are selling...

They are not actually conducting anything resembling science, they're pissing in the dark. Climatology has never yielded an accurate prediction beyond a few years, and even inside that threshold their record is spotty. And guess what? Their still using the same methods.


Yeah, I don't buy that they know *how* the climate is going to change.

I do buy the basic, common sense, "if you insert a huge increase in this one particular insulating gas in this complex and intricate system, SHIT WILL HAPPEN. This shit will be different. You will not be ready for this shit, and neither will most ecosystems. This shit will probably change your entire way of life."

That's just.....duh.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
apricity
almost grown-up but not quite
Posts: 3983
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:28 am UTC
Location: Probably North Dakota or something

Postby apricity » Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:21 am UTC

space_raptor wrote:I think we should reduce CO2 levels. Bring on the nuclear power.
I think we should reduce pollution. Bring on the catalytic converters and the public transit.

I think this is a fair position to have. I don't think we necessarily have to all go back to living in small, self-sufficient communities that run on wind power. I am skeptical of any story that claims disaster is coming, just because I think the media is looking for the crazies cause they make for better stories.


I think there are probably a decent number of credible scientists that believe in the disaster theories, but I still agree that the steps you're suggesting are the best ideas. If you really get down to it, we're all screwed if living in small, self-sufficient communities that run on wind power is the only way to save us, since that will never happen. The methods you said for cutting down on CO2 and pollution are the best and most realistic options we have right now. And even if it's NOT a huge problem at all, we should still cut down on that junk if only for the health of the general population.
LE4d wrote:have you considered becoming an electron

it takes just a little practice to learn to be
(she/her/hers)

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:37 am UTC

Hello, did someone say nuclear power?

User avatar
Aoeniac
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:55 am UTC
Location: RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY SPOT→•

Postby Aoeniac » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Even after the point of no return (where we shift the natural systems beyond the point where they are able to restore equilibrium naturally even over millions of years), it's going to take a long time for the feedback loops to run away with themselves and send us into a brief fiery apocalypse followed by an indeterminate (infinite barring events occurring outside the earth system) period of frozen wasteland.

In other words, unless you plan on living for a few hundred or maybe even thousand more years, don't worry about this crap and let the future deal with it. Seriously. It's easy to talk about how we need to do something about the environment's impact on us before it crushes us flat but I really don't see any of us here getting up and doing something about it anytime soon.
Last edited by Aoeniac on Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:55 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Class: 12th level Epiphenomenalist Alignment: Rational

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:31 am UTC

In other words, unless you plan on living for a few thousand more years, don't worry about this crap and let the future deal with it.


I tend to live under the tacit assumption that aging and age-death will be cured in my lifetime.

It makes me much more conscientious about such things.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Aoeniac
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:55 am UTC
Location: RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY SPOT→•

Postby Aoeniac » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:01 am UTC

Even if we could cure age related death, do you really think we'd let anybody use it?

What sort of radical restructuring of our society do you foresee us instigating within a timespan as short as a single average lifespan?

Do you think we'll have the medical science to keep a human being alive effectively forever, have the resources and capability to expand our territory beyond Earth (or the ethical capacity to end or limit reproduction), and the social flexibility to accommodate for the end of natural death by the time you're about to die?

Or were you hoping that it would be something for only the elite and that you would by then possess abilities warranting your being granted eternal life?
Class: 12th level Epiphenomenalist Alignment: Rational

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:26 am UTC

Didn't have it planned out, and even if I did, it's fodder for another thread.

Point is, I don't know, I might still be around. Best not to brutally fuck the planet beyond all recognition if I can avoid it.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Postby wisnij » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:49 am UTC

Aoeniac wrote:Even if we could cure age related death, do you really think we'd let anybody use it?

Illegal things are only as expensive as the cheapest guy you have to bribe to get them.

(Also: I just saw "An Inconvenient Truth" today. If anybody needs me, I'll be in the ANGRY DOME.)
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:19 pm UTC

I think we'll have much longer lives than ever before, but I don't think they're going to stop age-related death. I think it's kind of like the rocket cars we're all supposed to be flying around in.

As to whether something is going to be done about global warming: Things ARE being done. The Canadian government, for example, just passed a budget that includes taxing vehicles with low gas mileage, and that has a tax credit for purchasing hybrids.

They're talking about building a nuclear power plant in my province or in the province next door. They're also talking about things like carbon sequestration, which is actually already being done in Saskatchewan.

There will be advancements in batteries that will make electric cars more attractive to people. As long as they increase the generation capacity with atmosphere friendly power stations(nuclear!) things will change.

I'm not saying that they will change a lot. China and India will probably not be doing a whole lot to reduce their emissions. But the pessimistic attitude that "Everyone is selfish and doesn't care about the future" isn't necessarily true. Some governments are "getting up and doing something about it". It's just something that requires a lot of political willpower. Small steps, certainly, but every little bit counts. The way to enact change is for individuals to put pressure on governments and markets to change the way things are done.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Postby Jesse » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:22 pm UTC

Chancellor Brown's budget has just outlines more spending on biofuels, bigger focus on carbon trading, a competition for carbon trapping and disposal, plus bigger road tax for less efficient cars, but tax cuts for more efficient cars.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:25 pm UTC

I think we'll have much longer lives than ever before, but I don't think they're going to stop age-related death. I think it's kind of like the rocket cars we're all supposed to be flying around in.


I dunno. We're so used to thinking of it as a biological inevitability, but it really isn't....but that's a topic for another thread that I'm debating starting.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:46 pm UTC

I'm not sure I necessarily like the idea of taxing SUVs or what not.

I can agree it's retarded for a single person to be driving a Hummer in southern California for example.

But there are a number of people for whom an SUV is the best option. Families living in rural areas where the roads are in very poor condition at certain times of the year. You need high ground clearance and power, as well as plenty of seating. That's an SUV.
Last edited by Akula on Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aoeniac
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:55 am UTC
Location: RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY SPOT→•

Postby Aoeniac » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:48 pm UTC

wisnij wrote:
Aoeniac wrote:Even if we could cure age related death, do you really think we'd let anybody use it?

Illegal things are only as expensive as the cheapest guy you have to bribe to get them.

(Also: I just saw "An Inconvenient Truth" today. If anybody needs me, I'll be in the ANGRY DOME.)


An Inconvenient Truth is honestly really messed up. Al Gore is fighting for a good cause and global climate change is, in my opinion, a very real and looming threat. But I don't agree with the tactics and some of the evidence Al Gore is using. Then again I DO think that deception is a GREAT way to get results before it's too late. At which point it could take millions/billions of years to solve the problem...

I think I just put myself at quite a moral quandary without realizing it. I don't like Al Gore because he's deceptive but I like deception because it can produce the results I want? I think I need to sit down...
Class: 12th level Epiphenomenalist Alignment: Rational

User avatar
Drostie
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:17 am UTC

Postby Drostie » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:02 pm UTC

Climate change will be a couple of degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, according to the IPCC predictions. The oceans will rise a little. There's nothing about this all that will kill us.

Supposedly, we're long overdue on an expected semicyclic ice age anyways. That's what the big fear was when I was a little kid -- global freezing. I'm waiting for the two to cancel each other out.

No, seriously. I'm worried a little about the coral reefs, because coral is notoriously temperature sensitive. But the rest of the world is much more temperature-adaptable than that; we're not going to kill off everything by raising the temperature a couple of degrees Celsius.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:04 pm UTC

Akula wrote:I'm not sure I necessarily like the idea of taxing SUVs or what not.

I can agree it's retarded for a single person to be driving a Hummer in southern California for example.

But there are a number of people for whom an SUV is the best option. Families living in rural areas where the roads are in very poor condition at certain times of the year. You need high ground clearance and power, as well as plenty of seating. That's an SUV.


Well, pickup trucks aren't being taxed by the Canadian government, probably for those reasons.

Personally, I'm not sure I like the whole idea of the government taxing something to actively discourage people from buying it. I like the idea of a tax credit for hybrids and the like. I don't like punishing people for making a choice, because there are many factors to consider. What if I make lots of long trips, and I want 4 wheel drive for the highway, but I don't need a truck bed? What if I like to go camping?
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:07 pm UTC

I don't like punishing people for making a choice, because there are many factors to consider. What if I make lots of long trips, and I want 4 wheel drive for the highway, but I don't need a truck bed? What if I like to go camping?


At the risk of sounding like an objectivist I know (and I do so loathe objectivism), you obviously value those things enough to pay the extra cost, or you don't. If you do, do them anyway. If you don't...don't.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:09 pm UTC

Belial wrote:At the risk of sounding like an objectivist I know (and I do so loathe objectivism), you obviously value those things enough to pay the extra cost, or you don't. If you do, do them anyway. If you don't...don't.


Why does the government get to punish me for it though? There's already costs involved without adding artificial ones.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:14 pm UTC

Because they don't want you to do it unless you really want it? Because they're trying to reduce the total number of people buying those things?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:40 pm UTC

Drostie wrote:Climate change will be a couple of degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, according to the IPCC predictions. The oceans will rise a little. There's nothing about this all that will kill us.

Supposedly, we're long overdue on an expected semicyclic ice age anyways. That's what the big fear was when I was a little kid -- global freezing. I'm waiting for the two to cancel each other out.

No, seriously. I'm worried a little about the coral reefs, because coral is notoriously temperature sensitive. But the rest of the world is much more temperature-adaptable than that; we're not going to kill off everything by raising the temperature a couple of degrees Celsius.


A few degrees hotter --> higher sea levels => fresh water from ice getting deposited into the ocean. Changing the ph level in the water can affect the gulf stream which is largely responsible for maintaining current temperature, and doing things like allowing the UK to have mild temperatures instead of being like Siberia.

Even if it didn't disrupt the Gulf Stream, many flora and fauna are extremely temperature sensitive, so ecosystems would still be strongly impacted, and that's bad.

So a few degrees hotter --> STILL BAD.

Also, I'm a little concerned that my original post about the main question about Global Warming being an issue of economic may have been misinterpreted -- the question is how quickly and thoroughly do we need to respond, since significant change in our behavior = FREAKY EXPENSIVE. That said, I believe that there is sufficient evidence - particularly with this new IPCC report - to indicate that Global Warming is happening, and that it is anthropogenic, or human caused. I do believe that it is worth some expense to change our behaviors and reliance on oil. However, I am not an economist, and I know very little about alternative fuels, so I can't really speak to that.
- Lani

"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:15 pm UTC

The gulf stream is not the simplest explaination for why UK is warmer than siberia in the winter.

If you look at the pacific coast, dispite a stream that pours cold water down the coast, the west coast of the pacific in north america looks more like the west coast of euroafricaasia than siberia.

A simpler explaination is wind currents: in the northern hemisphere, there is a prevailing wind going from west to east. Areas in which the prevailing wind flows from a large body of water (like an ocean) tend to have warm winters and moist summers.

The further you push into a from west to east the colder one's winters get, until you get really close to the east side of the continent.

Then the more ocean you cross, the warmer it gets at the same latitude.

...

The shut down of a gulf stream would probably have an impact on UK weather, but claiming that the gulf stream is the only difference between siberia and/or newfoundland like weather and UK like weather is not reasonable.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:21 pm UTC

That is why they are doing it, yes. But I wish those interfering bastards would just leave us alone to go to hell in the handbasket of our own choosing.

In other news, Firefox keeps crashing when I am typing comments. Are you modmins aware of this? It's only happening on this site.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:58 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote:Well, pickup trucks aren't being taxed by the Canadian government, probably for those reasons.

Personally, I'm not sure I like the whole idea of the government taxing something to actively discourage people from buying it. I like the idea of a tax credit for hybrids and the like. I don't like punishing people for making a choice, because there are many factors to consider. What if I make lots of long trips, and I want 4 wheel drive for the highway, but I don't need a truck bed? What if I like to go camping?


The problem is before, you wheren't paying the right price for the good.

The side effects (CO^2 pollution and other pollutions) that your SUV generates to a dispurportinate amount where not factored into the price.

Let's try a thought experiemnt.

There is a pile of rocks. These rocks are communal property. They hold up a retaining wall that hold back a river.

Every rock removed has a 0.01% chance of causing flooding next year, with an estimated total cost of flooding in the area of of 500,000$.

Bob sells carved rocks. He carves the rocks into tools. It takes Bob 10 minutes to carve a rock, and 10 extra minutes to find a rock that isn't part of the retaining wall.

Alice wants to buy a tool.

Bob, noticing that he can double his productivity by taking retaining rocks, uses them. He sells them for 20$ each. He also sells retaining-wall-free rocks for 40$ each (same hourly salary).

Now along comes Eve, the mayor. She says "Hey, you are taking retaining rocks! That causes flooding." Instead of simply banning the taking of these rocks, Eve works out that each rock causes an average of 50$ in harm. So Eve charges 50$ per rock taken.

Now, Bob's retaining rocks cost him 10 minutes plus 50$, while the non-retaining rocks cost 20 minutes plus 0$. If he just passes on costs, retaining rock tools cost 70$ while non-retaining rock tools cost 40$.

As it happens, the retaining rocks are a pretty blue colour, while the non-retaining rocks are an ugly grey. So some people still buy the retaining rock tools, because they like the extra features.

In the next town over, the situation is simlar except the expected fooding damage is only 50,000$ per flood. This means that they only charge 5$ per retaining rock taken.

Here, charlie sells the retaining rock tools for 25$, and the non-retaining rock tools for 40$. They have other differences, so sometimes people pick the more expensive one over the cheap one.

...

And that is what charging people extra for an SUV is about. Before hand, you where harming everyone by emitting extra CO^2, but you where not paying for it. Now, you must pay the cost of your extra emissions.

If you think that extra cost is worth the extra features, then you are at least properly compensating others for the harm you are doing. If you don't think the extra cost is worth the extra features, then you are no longer freeloading by harming other people.

There can be questions about the charge being accurate or not (it might be too high or too low), but the basic idea is really sound.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:01 pm UTC

Ah. Now I see.

For the record, I drive a sedan. As soon as I can afford one though, I'm getting a crotch rocket.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
apricity
almost grown-up but not quite
Posts: 3983
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:28 am UTC
Location: Probably North Dakota or something

Postby apricity » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:58 am UTC

Drostie wrote:Climate change will be a couple of degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, according to the IPCC predictions. The oceans will rise a little. There's nothing about this all that will kill us.


Even if there was no climate change involved, you still have to think about what the oceans rising does-- it submerges land. Do you really want to lose half of Manhattan and Florida? Displace millions of people? Cause major erosion, lose tons of tourism revenue, sacrifice the most famous city in the world and half a STATE?
LE4d wrote:have you considered becoming an electron

it takes just a little practice to learn to be
(she/her/hers)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:06 am UTC

space_raptor wrote:That is why they are doing it, yes. But I wish those interfering bastards would just leave us alone to go to hell in the handbasket of our own choosing.


Fortunately, government exists, in part, to prevent OTHER PEOPLE from dragging *me* to hell in THEIR HANDBASKET.

It doesn't necessarily do a good job, but that's what it's there for.

Also, those things that Yakk said.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:14 am UTC

:lol: :lol:

So, we're all going to hell in the handbasket chosen by the masses?

I am very reassured.

I'm sorry, I'm not really this ornery most of the time. :D
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
MurdocRocks
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:56 am UTC
Location: Isla Vista, CA

Postby MurdocRocks » Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:31 am UTC

Has anybody seen the Great Global Warming Swindle?

And if you have, do you know if it's points are valid?

I just watched it, and it seems pretty convincing, though I have no doubt it's every bit as bias as pro anthropogenic global warming.

User avatar
Aoeniac
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:55 am UTC
Location: RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY SPOT→•

Postby Aoeniac » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:17 am UTC

Regardless of where anybody stands on the climate change issue, I get really annoyed when people don't treat a small change in temperature as a big deal.

How much does your temperature change when you have a fever? You could be dying and your temperature is, what, 2 degrees higher? A few degrees is a big deal.

Given the concentrations of salt in the antarctic waters due to the brine rejection process water undergoes as it freezes, and the average temperature during the SUMMER, the entire expanse of antarctic ice could potentially be in a lot of trouble with only a few degrees. But don't worry, it would still refreeze when summer's over, for a while anyway... Assuming that the melting of all that nice reflective ice and snow doesn't throw the Earth's albedo too far out of whack.
Class: 12th level Epiphenomenalist Alignment: Rational

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Postby evilbeanfiend » Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:59 am UTC

MurdocRocks wrote:Has anybody seen the Great Global Warming Swindle?

And if you have, do you know if it's points are valid?

I just watched it, and it seems pretty convincing, though I have no doubt it's every bit as bias as pro anthropogenic global warming.


not watched it but seen enough of the flak it attracted in the uk to know it was rubbish. it appears they pretty much made up the results and misrepresented what their guests were saying.

http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
http://www.badscience.net/?p=383

User avatar
Mathmagic
It's not as cool as that Criss Angel stuff.
Posts: 2926
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:48 am UTC
Location: In ur fora posting in teh threads

Postby Mathmagic » Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:35 am UTC

I haven't read this thread, but I just finished watching a very compelling documentary based on concrete, scientific facts and figures. I can confidently say thatman-made global warming is a myth.

/Thread

EDIT: Damn, I just looked at the post above me in the quote bubble. Beaten to the punch.

Oh well, watch the movie anyway...
Axman: That, and have you played DX 10 games? It's like having your corneas swabbed with clits made out of morphine.
Pathway: cocks cocks cocks


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests