Justin Bieber's Terrifying New Math

What's going on in the world today?

Moderators: Loki, robroydude, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, Spinny Spamkiller

Justin Bieber's Terrifying New Math

Postby RAnthony » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:19 pm

(renamed for the subject that the moron forum members want to talk about. Anything but Global Warming. :roll: )

For those of you who think that a former Vice President is all there is to global warming...
When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z21Bup5DYq
http://www.350.org/
Last edited by RAnthony on Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby Nergol » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:27 pm

Ah, yes, that great journal of science, Rolling Stone. I know I always like to get my hard science from a journal that has Justin Bieber on the cover:

Image
Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion!
User avatar
Nergol
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6282
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:33 pm

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby RAnthony » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:33 pm

http://www.billmckibben.com/end-of-nature.html
Reissued on the tenth anniversary of its publication, this classic work on our environmental crisis features a new introduction by the author, reviewing both the progress and ground lost in the fight to save the earth.

This impassioned plea for radical and life-renewing change is today still considered a groundbreaking work in environmental studies. McKibben's argument that the survival of the globe is dependent on a fundamental, philosophical shift in the way we relate to nature is more relevant than ever. McKibben writes of our earth's environmental cataclysm, addressing such core issues as the greenhouse effect, acid rain, and the depletion of the ozone layer. His new introduction addresses some of the latest environmental issues that have risen during the 1990s. The book also includes an invaluable new appendix of facts and figures that surveys the progress of the environmental movement.

More than simply a handbook for survival or a doomsday catalog of scientific prediction, this classic, soulful lament on Nature is required reading for nature enthusiasts, activists, and concerned citizens alike.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby Nergol » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:37 pm

http://www.billmckibben.com/bio.html

Yup - a longtime environmentalist activist believes in global warming. In other news, the Pope believes in God.
Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion!
User avatar
Nergol
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6282
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:33 pm

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby RAnthony » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:51 pm

http://www.350.org/en/about/science
350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.

Accelerating arctic warming and other early climate impacts have led scientists to conclude that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to below 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.

There are three numbers you need to really understand global warming: 275, 392, and 350.

Since the beginning of human civilization up until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained about 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Parts per million is simply a way of measuring the concentration of different gases, and means the ratio of the number of carbon dioxide molecules to all of the molecules in the atmosphere. 275 ppm CO2 is a useful amount—without some CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in our atmosphere, our planet would be too cold for humans to inhabit.

So we need some carbon in the atmosphere, but the question is how much?

Beginning in the 18th century, humans began to burn coal and gas and oil to produce energy and goods. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere began to rise, at first slowly and now more quickly. Many of the activities we do every day like turning the lights on, cooking food, or heating or cooling our homes rely on those fossil fuel energy sources that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. We're taking millions of years worth of carbon, stored beneath the earth as fossil fuels, and releasing it into the atmosphere. By now—and this is the second number—the planet has about 392 parts per million CO2 – and this number is rising by about 2 parts per million every year.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby nmoore63 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:43 pm

In other news, models that can't accurately predict the past... or the future... predict that unless you exactly as they tell you, you're screwed.

Political scar tactics, even if they are right is waste of time. If what they that article says is true... its not "almost too late"... It is too late, so they can stop worrying.
Nick Moore - The Ponderous Right Winger

... And furthermore, the NSA must be destroyed.
User avatar
nmoore63
Archon
 
Posts: 11270
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Ephrata, WA

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby RAnthony » Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:48 pm

June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719#ixzz21CKmLpD6
...answer to the math, then. It probably is too late for Africa, since 1 degree Celsius will mean widespread starvation there, and with the projected increases due to carbon already in the air, we'll top 1.6.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby nmoore63 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Answer the response then.
-------------

The action required to prevent what they claim cannot be achieved.

That's not a plan.

Take the doom and gloom else where.
Nick Moore - The Ponderous Right Winger

... And furthermore, the NSA must be destroyed.
User avatar
nmoore63
Archon
 
Posts: 11270
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Ephrata, WA

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby RAnthony » Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:54 pm

You're the one saying "it can't be done". Who's spouting doom and gloom?
Left to our own devices, citizens might decide to regulate carbon and stop short of the brink; according to a recent poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans would back an international agreement that cut carbon emissions 90 percent by 2050. But we aren't left to our own devices. The Koch brothers, for instance, have a combined wealth of $50 billion, meaning they trail only Bill Gates on the list of richest Americans. They've made most of their money in hydrocarbons, they know any system to regulate carbon would cut those profits, and they reportedly plan to lavish as much as $200 million on this year's elections. In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce surpassed both the Republican and Democratic National Committees on political spending; the following year, more than 90 percent of the Chamber's cash went to GOP candidates, many of whom deny the existence of global warming. Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations." As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z21CMuOcd3
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby DeputyVanHalen » Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:08 pm

The best thing to do to limit human-caused climate change, is to limit the number of humans. But the leftists who push the environmental agenda, are usually the same ones who think that people should be able to have all the children they want, and count on the government to support them. And they're usually the ones insisting that we keep sending massive food aid to places like Sub-Saharan Africa, to feed the 5 or 6 babies per woman that continue to be squeezed out there.
DeputyVanHalen
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:23 am

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby RAnthony » Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:30 pm

That is actually not really the case. It sounds good, to people who worry about over-population (and it's a genuine worry) but populations tend to self-regulate based on education and wealth. Check the stats.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby de officiis » Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:46 pm

For those of us willing to assume that global warming is a reality, and are willing to do our little part to try and reverse or at least slow the trend, is there a reliable source of information about our options? I'm not adverse to pitching in on the assumption that although the evidence may be disputed, the consequences if the evidence is true would be devastating. So what can the average person do to help? I have thought about planting some more trees in my yard, but apparently although helpful, it's not terribly helpful. I found this list of things at an APR site, too. None of this sounds terribly burdensome. Are there other, practical ideas that don't involve me riding my bike to work every day, never buying anything, or staying home 24-7?
Image
User avatar
de officiis
Satrap
 
Posts: 4195
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby Waleis » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:13 pm

It's the same conflict that socialists and anarchists must go through. Want to change the political system? You must act against your morals. Want to help the environment? You must act against your morals.

Individual acts do not compare to communitarian acts. It's far more important to actively engage the community, than it is to try changing things on your own. As individuals, we cannot succeed. If you have to harm the environment (i.e. buy a plane ticket) to engage the community, then so be it.
"No man grows rich by kindness."-Jorah Mormont

"True heroism is you, alone, in a designated workspace. True heroism is minutes, hours, days, year upon year of the quiet, precise, judicious exercise of probity and care, with no one there to see or cheer." The Pale King, by D. F. Wallace.
User avatar
Waleis
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 9762
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:32 am
Location: Dragonstone, Iowa

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby nmoore63 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:20 pm

RAnthony wrote:That is actually not really the case. It sounds good, to people who worry about over-population (and it's a genuine worry) but populations tend to self-regulate based on education and wealth. Check the stats.

Funny... I would use the same premise to prove were fucked...

If only 66% of the wealthiest on earth.... Then you have a good 1% of the planet on board...

When is the annihilation of India and china scheduled for?
Nick Moore - The Ponderous Right Winger

... And furthermore, the NSA must be destroyed.
User avatar
nmoore63
Archon
 
Posts: 11270
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Ephrata, WA

Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Postby RAnthony » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:35 pm

I have been an active recycler since the 80's. I've said "save the packaging" so many times (to family and to people offering me a bag for items) that it will probably be written on my tombstone. I have been actively looking for an affordable electric car for the last decade or so.

I'm already doing what any sane individual should be expected to do.

What has to change now is the system; the last year or so has made this painfully clear. The demand for sustainable systems is out there, but the government now stands directly in the way of getting those systems up and running, with funding from vested interests in fossil fuels. We must take back our government, and make the changes systemically that are required to start ourselves on a sustainable path. We have to start investing in research again, so that we can find ways to avert or minimize the damage our foolishness has made possible.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Next

Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests