Climate Change

[__HRB__]

My mom says that people should worry about global humidity, because it is much more inconvenient than global warming.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by IronBits

CFLs, the ones with all the toxins in them and that we didn't find out about until many had switched all bulbs over in their houses, and will now pollute our landfills even worse.

If you're talking about mercury, incandescents have something like half as much mercury as CFLs but over the lifetime of the bulb cause several times (> 3x) more mercury to be emitted thanks to increased electricity use (typically coming from coal, the burning of which releases mercury into the air).

[MooooMoo]

I just read an article that made me glad that I'm not living in the UK:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6350237.ece

"Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment."

A British newspaper also published a similar article last year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....ethicalliving

"People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change."

On another note, I once tried living car-free for a week just for fun. During that week, I biked or ran 125-150 miles and ate 20-25 pounds of meat. According to the first article, producing 20-25 pounds of beef and lamb gives off about 360 lb of co2. If I were to drive those 125-150 miles in a 12-15 mpg SUV, ten gallons of gas would have been burned, resulting in only 195 lb of co2 emitted. Driving a 25-30 mpg sedan would give off less than 100lb of co2, which results in fewer emissions even after considering that only a third of meat consumed was lamb or beef, and that I still would have eaten some meat if I were completely sedentary.

So don't bike or run, drive! It's faster, more comfortable, and better for the environment. It's probably cheaper too, unless gas is above $5/gallon or if you're driving a high-priced luxury car.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by MooooMoo

So don't bike or run, drive! It's faster, more comfortable, and better for the environment. It's probably cheaper too, unless gas is above $5/gallon or if you're driving a high-priced luxury car.

B-b-b-b-but that cannot be right, because it's not what Al Gore would do! (see it without the ads as a .torrent, if you like)





.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by MooooMoo

"People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change."

Again, I will advocate that the main, long term solution for the GW problem is severely restricted global scale human population, to about 1/3-1/2 current levels. 1 child per couple policy, incentives for verified sterilisations (of adults), incentives for adoption vs. birthed single child would all help.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Again, I will advocate that the main, long term solution for the GW problem is severely restricted global scale human population, to about 1/3-1/2 current levels. 1 child per couple policy, incentives for verified sterilisations (of adults), incentives for adoption vs. birthed single child would all help.

...which is a load of crap, because that is not how population ecology works.

Appart from that, the long term solution is my self-replicating robots putting the oil back where it came from.

Humans are so easily manipulated, that they will gladly start the process with genocide & mass graves for billions of humans, until my robots can wipe out the rest of the previously dominant species.

Of course it's a trick - my robots actually want GW for their heatpump T-2.7K to work more efficiently, so they'll turn all carbon based life into CO2 anyway.

Muahahaha!

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

...which is a load of crap, because that is not how population ecology works.

http://oto2.wustl.edu/bbears/trajcom/carbon3.htm

Look at the last graph and the companion paragraph.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

http://oto2.wustl.edu/bbears/trajcom/carbon3.htm

Look at the last graph and the companion paragraph.

So?

With genetically modified crops, novel foods (like high-protein insects) improved irrigation techniques, terra-forming with nano-bots, etc. you can feed many times Earth's current population. Food is currently not a limiting factor, which is why population is still growing.

Genetic engineering is still an embryo. As soon as someone figures out how to 'grow' houses, cars, streets and all the other stuff out of thin air, you'll see that the amount of CO2 in the air will become the limiting factor. Then it will be the rich nations who are sucking all athmospheric carbon into their greenhouses, which means that everybody dependent on food by growing plants out in the open will die.

BTW, if we can make monkeys glow green today, we can make human beings capable of photosynthesis tomorrow. We can make our bodies smaller, our brains more efficient with superconducting implants, we'll use less energy moving about with VR technologies, etc.

Just because you lack ingenuity, doesn't mean that all other humans have the same mental defect. But of course that's what the monkey inside of you is scared of: someone else making your existence obsolete.

[garo]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

So?

With genetically modified crops, novel foods (like high-protein insects) improved irrigation techniques, terra-forming with nano-bots, etc. you can feed many times Earth's current population. Food is currently not a limiting factor, which is why population is still growing.

Genetic engineering is still an embryo. As soon as someone figures out how to 'grow' houses, cars, streets and all the other stuff out of thin air, you'll see that the amount of CO2 in the air will become the limiting factor. Then it will be the rich nations who are sucking all athmospheric carbon into their greenhouses, which means that everybody dependent on food by growing plants out in the open will die.

BTW, if we can make monkeys glow green today, we can make human beings capable of photosynthesis tomorrow. We can make our bodies smaller, our brains more efficient with superconducting implants, we'll use less energy moving about with VR technologies, etc.

Just because you lack ingenuity, doesn't mean that all other humans have the same mental defect. But of course that's what the monkey inside of you is scared of: someone else making your existence obsolete.

What an idiotic load of crap! Is that how population ecology works?

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by garo

Is that how population ecology works?

Humans have no enemies left, so their population simply grows exponentially until there is a limiting factor, but human ingenuity currently keeps removing limiting factors.

In the presence of a limiting factor, qualitatively you'll get this:
Logistic_function#In_ecology:_modeling_population_growth

Note that the function is monotone, so Uncwilly's 'solution' postulating a stable population size below the current one is total bull.

Contrary to popular belief, homicide rates have been declining over the last 800 years, so humans are also learning to get better along with each other, but of course this requires us to wipe out nincompoops like Uncwilly who's solution to allocation problems involves a totalitarian world government, run by benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient supermen.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Humans have no enemies left, so their population simply grows exponentially until there is a limiting factor, but human ingenuity currently keeps removing limiting factors.

If that was true, you'd have explosive population growth in Europe.