The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[Jokodo]

Incidentally, DBT, I found where l previously discussed in more detail how infinity isn't going to save assuming perpetual exponential growth: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4712-The-Math-Thread&p=498365&viewfull=1#post498365

Without that assumption however, finiteness isn't necessarily a show killer either, demonstrating that your repeated remarks in the finite planet are beside the point.

 

[skepticalbip]

AOC's problems are almost all with her proposed solutions. Her statements of the problems are generally competent for a lay person.

That was my impression too, but here we skepticalbip calling her "the new guru", comparing her with Paul Ehrlich, saying that she was spreading made up scientific "facts".

Of course no examples.

You need to read more carefully. In the first decade of this century, Gore led the "OMG, we are all going to die" wing of the popular climate debate with predictions of imminent doom. Now AOC has claimed that the world will be destroyed in twelve years unless we enact her 'green new deal" legislation.

AOC's declaration has been repeated by some other politicians and, in the recent children's march, there were some kids actually so distraught over the imminent doom that they were crying.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC's declaration has been repeated by some other politicians and, in the recent children's march, there were some kids actually so distraught over the imminent doom that they were crying.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.
Like the “world ending in 12 years” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.
But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows. https://t.co/pmkwrdeAnq" / Twitter

 

[skepticalbip]

AOC's declaration has been repeated by some other politicians and, in the recent children's march, there were some kids actually so distraught over the imminent doom that they were crying.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.
Like the “world ending in 12 years” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.
But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows. https://t.co/pmkwrdeAnq" / Twitter

Cute. I never thought she believed it any more than I believe that Al Gore believed the panic mongering he fed the public. If they actually believed it then it wouldn't be as bad. They are politicians. Their goal was to manipulate and to scare the shit out of their followers, which they did. Al was quite successful and made millions doing it. AOC has her followers scrambling to pass her 'green new deal' so they can save the world.

 

[DBT]

Incidentally, DBT, I found where l previously discussed in more detail how infinity isn't going to save assuming perpetual exponential growth: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4712-The-Math-Thread&p=498365&viewfull=1#post498365

Without that assumption however, finiteness isn't necessarily a show killer either, demonstrating that your repeated remarks in the finite planet are beside the point.

Perpetual growth is the wet dream of neoclassical economists, who appear to be somehow removed from reality...that it is our environment and ecosystems that sustain our way of life. A finite planet has a finite carrying capacity, which of course varies from region to region. Ecologists understand this perfectly well, yet the principle appears to fly over heads of average economist or politician.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC's declaration has been repeated by some other politicians and, in the recent children's march, there were some kids actually so distraught over the imminent doom that they were crying.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.
Like the “world ending in 12 years” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.
But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows. https://t.co/pmkwrdeAnq" / Twitter

Cute. I never thought she believed it any more than I believe that Al Gore believed the panic mongering he fed the public. If they actually believed it then it wouldn't be as bad. They are politicians. Their goal was to manipulate and to scare the shit out of their followers, which they did. Al was quite successful and made millions doing it. AOC has her followers scrambling to pass her 'green new deal' so they can save the world.

The world won't end -- just get much worse. 8- 27-2019 Instagram Ocasio2018 Ocasio-Cortez Live Video QA - YouTube - she worries a lot about it, like being awakened at 3:30 am during her recent vacation.

 

[Jokodo]

Incidentally, DBT, I found where l previously discussed in more detail how infinity isn't going to save assuming perpetual exponential growth: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4712-The-Math-Thread&p=498365&viewfull=1#post498365

Without that assumption however, finiteness isn't necessarily a show killer either, demonstrating that your repeated remarks in the finite planet are beside the point.

Perpetual growth is the wet dream of neoclassical economists, who appear to be somehow removed from reality...that it is our environment and ecosystems that sustain our way of life. A finite planet has a finite carrying capacity, which of course varies from region to region. Ecologists understand this perfectly well, yet the principle appears to fly over heads of average economist or politician.

And an infinite planet/ universe still only supports a finite speed if expansion and therefore in the long run a very much finite growth rate (converging on zero), as long as we assume growth implies growth of resource use.

Finiteness is beside the point is what I'm saying.

 

[skepticalbip]

Cute. I never thought she believed it any more than I believe that Al Gore believed the panic mongering he fed the public. If they actually believed it then it wouldn't be as bad. They are politicians. Their goal was to manipulate and to scare the shit out of their followers, which they did. Al was quite successful and made millions doing it. AOC has her followers scrambling to pass her 'green new deal' so they can save the world.

The world won't end -- just get much worse. 8- 27-2019 Instagram Ocasio2018 Ocasio-Cortez Live Video QA - YouTube - she worries a lot about it, like being awakened at 3:30 am during her recent vacation.

Sure, and you believe that she was so green minded that she didn't know what a garbage disposal was? Her lifestyle doesn't "waste" energy with such things? You fell for the manipulation maybe?

 

[lpetrich]

(about AOC)

Sure, and you believe that she was so green minded that she didn't know what a garbage disposal was? Her lifestyle doesn't "waste" energy with such things? You fell for the manipulation maybe?

Kitchen-sink garbage disposals were illegal in New York City for a long time, and even after they were legalized, they remain rare.

I don't think that I've ever used one, and when I turned one on, I couldn't stand its noise. So AOC's response was understandable. It's the video in this article: Was U.S. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez 'Scared' by Her Garbage Disposal?

 

[skepticalbip]

But you were aware of what a garbage disposal was. And AOC didn't grow up in New York City. Her family moved to a fairly affluent neighborhood in Yorktown Heights (so NYC laws are irrelevant) when she was five... though she wants to give the impression of having grown up in the Bronx where she had only lived until the age of five.

Hell, I grew up without a garbage disposal but, like you, knew what they were.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Exactly the same plan, btw, that was behind the supposed nuclear bomb “survival” cartoons every kid in America was forced to watch in the fifties and sixties. “Duck and cover” and “fallout shelters” were all actually designed to make it easier for the grave diggers. True. Absolutely true.

So that’s all fun.

This makes no sense. After a nuclear war there aren't going to be grave diggers.

Yes, exactly. Think before you type.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

AOC's problems are almost all with her proposed solutions. Her statements of the problems are generally competent for a lay person.

Sadly her statements of the solutions owe more to popularity than to practicality.

Right, we do not live in a representative democracy. The substantial people will tell the unsubstantial people what is "practical" as far as capital is concerned.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Incidentally, DBT, I found where l previously discussed in more detail how infinity isn't going to save assuming perpetual exponential growth: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4712-The-Math-Thread&p=498365&viewfull=1#post498365

Without that assumption however, finiteness isn't necessarily a show killer either, demonstrating that your repeated remarks in the finite planet are beside the point.

Perpetual growth is the wet dream of neoclassical economists, who appear to be somehow removed from reality...that it is our environment and ecosystems that sustain our way of life. A finite planet has a finite carrying capacity, which of course varies from region to region. Ecologists understand this perfectly well, yet the principle appears to fly over heads of average economist or politician.

There it is. America is still stuck in its Manifest Destiny/Age of Discovatheft phase, childishly and arrogantly unable to fully develop into a mature coherent society based upon responsibility versus guilt, sin and blame. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

AOC's problems are almost all with her proposed solutions. Her statements of the problems are generally competent for a lay person.

That was my impression too, but here we skepticalbip calling her "the new guru", comparing her with Paul Ehrlich, saying that she was spreading made up scientific "facts".

Of course no examples.

Sure. The reason she has to be targeted is because she's all wet, way off base, and has no idea what she's talking about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Strip a few of those 9s - you're insinuating less than 10k survivers. The earth is very well capable of supporting tens, of not hundreds of millions living primitive lifestyles. Even before the advent of agriculture, most estimates put the human population in the 7- digit range.

Of course it's not very relevant. Killing (directly or indirectly) 7,000,000,000 people isn't any more ethical than killing 7,590,000,000 or 7,599,990,000

Yeah, I got an extra 9. I disagree on hundreds of millions with primitive lifestyles, though--primitive lifestyles basically will not permit extractive industries as pretty much anything that could be reached with that tech level has already been mined. Those hundreds of millions will use up the stuff that has already been extracted and then there will be no more metal tools. We would then fall until we reached the point we could obtain the resources of the technology--which means early stone age.

You always forget that the ruins are better ore than anything in prehistory. One modern container ship contains more iron than the Roman Empire used at its peak. A single abandoned modern shipyard can provide iron age tools to tens of millions; An abandoned city can do the same for hundreds of millions more. That material isn't available to us because people get pissed and call the cops if you dismantle their stuff for its scrap metal value. But in a post-apocalyptic world, all those concentrated bulk deposits of refined metals and other materials that we call 'cities' are there for the taking.

It's not harder to rebuild society because the mines are exhausted; It's easier, because the stuff has already been brought to the surface.

1) The cities have a lot of metal in forms that can't be manipulated.

2) City metal can probably keep things going for centuries. Millennia, though? Nope, it only delays the inevitable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Strip a few of those 9s - you're insinuating less than 10k survivers. The earth is very well capable of supporting tens, of not hundreds of millions living primitive lifestyles. Even before the advent of agriculture, most estimates put the human population in the 7- digit range.

Of course it's not very relevant. Killing (directly or indirectly) 7,000,000,000 people isn't any more ethical than killing 7,590,000,000 or 7,599,990,000

Yeah, I got an extra 9. I disagree on hundreds of millions with primitive lifestyles, though--primitive lifestyles basically will not permit extractive industries as pretty much anything that could be reached with that tech level has already been mined. Those hundreds of millions will use up the stuff that has already been extracted and then there will be no more metal tools. We would then fall until we reached the point we could obtain the resources of the technology--which means early stone age.

One 9 removed is s still only 76,000 survivors. There were more people than that (by some estimates 100 times this number) long before agriculture, let alone metallurgy.

Note: Early stone age. Late stone age requires things like obsidian that will be used up.

 

[bilby]

You always forget that the ruins are better ore than anything in prehistory. One modern container ship contains more iron than the Roman Empire used at its peak. A single abandoned modern shipyard can provide iron age tools to tens of millions; An abandoned city can do the same for hundreds of millions more. That material isn't available to us because people get pissed and call the cops if you dismantle their stuff for its scrap metal value. But in a post-apocalyptic world, all those concentrated bulk deposits of refined metals and other materials that we call 'cities' are there for the taking.

It's not harder to rebuild society because the mines are exhausted; It's easier, because the stuff has already been brought to the surface.

1) The cities have a lot of metal in forms that can't be manipulated.

And a lot more in forms that can.

2) City metal can probably keep things going for centuries. Millennia, though? Nope, it only delays the inevitable.

It's not going away. It can easily keep things going indefinitely.

 

[bilby]

One 9 removed is s still only 76,000 survivors. There were more people than that (by some estimates 100 times this number) long before agriculture, let alone metallurgy.

Note: Early stone age. Late stone age requires things like obsidian that will be used up.

You clearly have no idea just how abundant the materials used for neolithic tools are.

There are areas in southern England (and doubtless elsewhere) where practically every building is made of flint or chert. It's everywhere. The amount used for tools by the neolithic inhabitants of the area didn't make the slightest inroad into the vast supply of these materials.

 

[fromderinside]

One 9 removed is s still only 76,000 survivors. There were more people than that (by some estimates 100 times this number) long before agriculture, let alone metallurgy.

Note: Early stone age. Late stone age requires things like obsidian that will be used up.

Piling on.

Obsidion? RU kidding? How many active explosive volcanoes do we have right now? 1, 5, 10, more.

How many volcanoes are there in the world https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcanoes/faq/how_many_volcanoes.html

The exact number of volcanoes is unknown. It also depends on the definition of a "volcano": for instance, there are "volcanic fields" that comprise hundreds of individual eruption centers (such as conder cones, maars, shield volcanoes) that are all relataed to the same magma chamber and that may or not be counted as a single "volcano".

There are probably millions of volcanoes that have been active during the whole lifespan of the earth. During the past 10,000 years, there are about 1500 volcanoes on land that are known to have have been active, while the even larger number of submarine volcanoes is unknown. At present, there are about 600 volcanoes that have had known eruptions during recorded history, while about 50-70 volcanoes are active (erupting) each year. At any given time, there is an average of about 20 volcanoes that are erupting.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is a better alternative: reducing atmospheric CO2 to preindustrial levels. That ought to get the climate back to something less dangerous for us.

Preindustrial = The Little Ice Age. Not just higher rates of freezing to death -- also lots of crop failures and famines. Something less dangerous for us would be to just stabilize CO2 at current levels. (A lot more feasible too.)