Well I was interested in hearing everybody's vision on the future and I would've been content to just enjoy reading them, but then people started to go into details again and this subject is so fascinating that I just couldn't resist... And one of the most fascinating things is that it's a scientific topic, and yet there are totally opposed views :) The weird thing is, that this warming stuff can be totally simulated in a laboratory environment and su
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1534" id="3425907"]The Earth doesn't care what the current state (homeostat) of the planet may be, natural processes just seek equilibrium whatever the current state.[/quote] It's only true to the extent that plant-life will always try to bond as much CO2 as it can. It will help remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Under hot-greenhouse conditions, when oceans are anoxic, this can be quite an efficient process because plants sink to the
There's also something wrong with plotting CO2 directly with Temperature. Namely, CO2 levels do not map 1:1 to temperature, the relation is a more like a Log function: T = log(C/C0). (Not exactly like this of course, but it comes closer). The reason this is important is: you are interested in small time differences, but the graphs are usually fitted as a whole. Therefore you have to fit the Log(CO2) data as accurately to the T data as you can, not the CO2 data th
I've taken a closer look at the ice-core data (I downloaded it and placed it in openoffice). I only looked at the data between 8,000 and 22,000 years old; there was a huge temperature jump of +8 degrees during that period. There seems to be a small lag of CO2 of about 200 years in that data set. But is that really significant considering the migration of CO2 over a time period of 2,000 years? It might be an artifact of the averaging of CO2 levels over
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1514" id="3425772"]Take a look at how temperatures go back down BEFORE CO2 levels go down. I don't know if the issue here is whether I'm dealing with people who have cognitive dissonance or simply are just not familiar with reading graphs. I mean that with no disrespect intended. Lots of people just have a hard time grasping the tools of statistical analysis.[/quote] Well.. there are 2 points I want to make about this graph. 1. It's only r
[quote who="Kantok" reply="1502" id="3425678"]This is exactly right. There is no value left in this thread unless one enjoys breathing the vapors of smug preening. [/quote] To be honest I'm not yet done with this topic. I still don't get what it is that convinces denialists why global warming is a non-issue. For example, why do denialists believe that temperature precedes CO2? I really would like to know. The only significant supp
For the skeptics: suppose that humans would emit 6,000 billion tons of CO2 in the next 100 years (that's about 2,000 billion tons of carbon). What will happen ?
I didn't like the movie very much, it left me with a bad feeling. The special effects were awesome of course and everything was decent. But it reminded me more of a matrix movie than superman. Gloomy, dark. And I don't like the recent attempts in movies to make heroes more "normal". Like in star trek, wolverine, james bond... come on people! They're (super)heroes! And there's that example of the Walking Dead ... my god was that awful... trying t
Perhaps we can add a few "personal" more pages to this topic by these questions: 1. What is your personal experience with global warming? 2a. What would convince you that global warming is real? 2b. What would convince you that it's not real? My answers are: 1. When I was young, about 30 years ago, there were several winters in which I could skate on the big canal. In the last 20 years that only occured o
[quote who="Kantok" reply="168" id="3425420"]Eugenics is a tool is the same way Joseph Mengele was one of Hitler's tools. Evil is evil. [/quote] Eugenics wasn't needed before, because nature took care of failures :) But well... I don't like eugenic either. I wear glasses, I'm a genetic mistake too. I'll wait for genetic engineering to fix this ^^
I think that we need some grease to keep the economic engine running perfectly. Having compromises is not always bad, as long as it doesn't compromise the interest of the general population too much ^^
[quote who="Raiddinn" reply="161" id="3425334"]All it really comes down to is how much people apply themselves towards getting good at something. Somebody that is willing to apply themselves can get good at pretty much anything.[/quote] Nah... such miracles only happen in movies. There are people who do their utmost best, but aren't able to accomplish much because they just don't get it ... And then there are people who don't do their best but acc
[quote who="Raiddinn" reply="155" id="3424860"]In the long term, people rearrange themselves to match what society needs. In the short term, the switching costs are too high for most people.[/quote] You think that people can do anything... but that's not really the case. The real world works like this: there are a few very talented people who do most of the work. And then there are lots of less smart people who can work but they take a lot longer for a given
[quote who="Raiddinn" reply="150" id="3424816"]The only way to support more specialists is to have more people that are low on the totem pole, farmers and janitors and what not.[/quote] Uhm... science only has to do with education. If society wants to, many people could become scientists. For example everybody who's out of a job... why isn't he a scientist? Why is he/she doing nothing? Most people just aren't suited to be a scientist. And society doesn'
I think the practical population limit will be 1 person / square meter on the earth. After that, it becomes impossible to move around and find a mate for procreation. That's a lot of people.
When people are poor, solidarity comes naturally. Maybe we should demand that all be poor instead of that all be rich :) Although... poor is relative. Someone who's poor in the Netherlands, would perhaps be considered normal (or even rich) in India. In the Netherlands, even the poor people have a right to go on holidays... try explaining that to someone who's poor elsewhere in the world ^^
You've to take care when reading things about the ocean and CO2 on the internet. This article for example is wrong: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/carbon-dioxide-and-the-ocean-temperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/ takes the solubility of CO2 in water, then calculates a CO2 release. They use a solubility factor that is valid at a cer
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1489" id="3424668"]GeomanNL - I would think twice about using Grant Foster as a source. Here is but one misdeed: [/quote] But... he had a good point about the baseline and he used year-averages, which make for a more robust comparison of data sets.
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1485" id="3424596"]Cosmic ray emission intensity is only one aspect of the sun's activity. A sustained increase in the sun's warming radiation of as 'little' as 0.1% would seem likely have much more impact than you seem willing to accept - the 'baseline' is pretty damn large so 0.1% can be a pretty impressive absolute number.[/quote] It's possible to calculate this with a pocket calculator. A 0.1% increase = a fac
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1482" id="3424557"]Better start burning firewood, Brad. We may need you to start contributing to greenhouse gas accumulation again (if AGW proponents are correct).[/quote] Interesting article. Let's hope they're right. But it seems very strange to me that small changes in the sun can have such dramatic effects on the climate. After all, the sun is a very quiet and stable star and its variations in solar irradiance are small
I see :) I've read lots of stories on cnbc in recent years, about extremely costly college educations where professors earn millions so that people were not able to study anymore, and that poorer people just didn't have a chance. That must've been just more of that sensasionalist journalistic bullshit then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Ok... sorry, the context was about taxes and government not about individuals... In the Netherlands, education is largely paid for by taxes and almost everybody has a chance to go to university. Even transportation is subsidized for students. That means that in the Netherlands, rich people pay largely for poor people's education. I think that's fair, it would be a shame if smart children didn't have a good education just because their parents have no money.
[quote who="Kantok" reply="124" id="3424542"]Want to know which five countries make up the top five in education spending as a percentage of GDP (2009 numbers)? I'll tell you, since you obviously don't know. [/quote] That's impressive, but is that government spending or private spending? [quote who="Kantok" reply="124" id="3424542"]Estimates for total commitments of those programs are around $100 trillion dollars. Trillion, not billion. [/quote] The Netherl
[quote who="Kantok" reply="121" id="3424515"]Please leave your "fair share - I only watch MSNBC" talking points at the door. The facts matter. In the US the top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the taxes. The top 25% pay almost 90% of all taxes. The top 50% pay roughly 98% of taxes. The "fair share" nonsense is a vapid bull shit political talking point. Nothing more.[/quote] Well they don't. The US government has to borrow a lot of money... like a third of their total budget.
[quote who="Kantok" reply="119" id="3424510"]In all the talk of "capitalism needs poor people" everyone seems stubborn to ignore the fact that capitalism, as a system and as it exists in the world today (even in flawed form) has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other force in human history. [/quote] I think it only works for the better if in combination with a fairly social form of a democratic government. I think that the only really succesful exampl
