Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Uh-huh' date=' any other population reduction measures in history that you care to mention as "admiring the results of"? I mean seriously, stop and think about what you are actually saying.[/quote']

You Godwin, you lose.

 

So' date=' I'll ask again, what enforcement measures would be needed to ensure that both the First World and the Third stick to your final solution for Global Warming? And what penalities should there be for countries and people who didn't stop "breeding like rabbits in Australia"?[/quote']

"Final solution." Yep, that's rational, helpful and likely to lead to productive discussion.

 

Childless by choice, done my part. My foster sons are childless as well, so I am in the ironic position of being able to claim childless by choice as a muli-generation family tradition.

 

That the US and parts of Europe have achieved ZPG without the Chinese strongarm tactics shows that the strongarm tactics are not necessary. Essential step here seems to be making birth control available and socially acceptable.

 

[more later]

 

Hmm' date=' almost forgot to address [i']McCoy[/i]'s question, out of your "billion" how many are dead versus displaced and what countries do the majority of refugees stem from in your scenerio?

Like you ever had any intention of answering. But let's make it easy. One third displace by rising sea levels in the Pacific Rim, one-third facing death by famine because of crop failure in Asia, one third dying of contageous diseases in Africa as Malaria penetrates areas where it has been totally unknown before (what Markdoc calls the "slow motion tsunami").

[Cancer]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Finally, I'll make a couple of comments about the direction this thread has drifted into.

 

The edition of Physics Today that got to my mailbox this week has a couple of articles about the anthropogenic climate change issue.

 

First is this one -- which is free access, not behiind the subscriber wall -- which compares this science controversy to others in the past, in particular the Copernican shift to heliocentricism and Einstein's general relativity. (There are other such controversies, but Physics Today is written for physicists by physicists so they have stuck to issues that lie squarely in physics' domain.) They are much the same pattern, though the relativity controversy never went quite as political as the other two (though there was a big enough backlash against relativity that there was a letter-writing campaign against Einstein's immigration to the US). The article also shows a telling little figure that suggests what a number of people suspect, that economic interest has an impact on what a country thinks about the climate issue: with admittedly a lot of noise, countries with large coal production also have lower proportions of people who believe in anthropogenic climate change. Gosh, big money interfering with public education and opinion on a scientific issue? Who woulda thought?)

 

There's a second article (sadly, it is here behind the subscriber wall) about communicating the science of climate change to the public. A point I've long known (since as an astronomer I have bumped up against literalist idiots -- I calls 'em as I sees 'em -- insisting on a few-thousand-year-old Earth since I began giving public talks back in my junior year as an undergrad) is that public debates are media shows and they do more harm than good. Scientists are always up against either zealots or slick promoters in that sort of show, and that means the latter are in their element and the scientist (with his naive believe that the truth will win all by its lonesome) isn't. So the agent of darkness almost always wins. The article includes ways for scientists to break out of sciencespeak, the way they communicate with each other, and get their points across to media and public, effectively.

 

(BTW, a quote from that second article: "At least 97% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is occurring and that it is primarily human-induced,", and that statement includes a citation Anderegg et al., 2010 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, volume 107, p. 12107. As someone who (1) does believe in anthropogenic climate change, (2) is not a climate researcher but has done research in radiative energy transfer in (stellar) atmospheres where much of the same physics is used (citation, I'm the first author), and (3) has seen the challenge posted upthread about belief and credentials, I include that PNAS citation and refer you to it for methods and selection criteria.)

[Ravor]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

You Godwin' date=' you lose.[/quote']

 

Sorry, the "Godwin Rule" only refers to the holocaust, which sadly was dwarfed by the "population decrease" caused by the central planners in the communist nations. Besides, if we use your expanded rule, then we've both lost (You first though. ) awhile back.

 

However in all seriousiness now, in my experience I've found that the Godwin Rule is typically invoked mostly by extremists who don't want to be called on it. And like it or not, admiring "the results" of China's one-child policy is fairly extreme in any area of the world that values human rights and freedom.

 

"Final solution." Yep' date=' that's rational, helpful and likely to lead to productive discussion. [img']http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/87110-Science-Particles-seen-moving-at-FTL-speeds-(CERN)/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

 

Childless by choice, done my part. My foster sons are childless as well, so I am in the ironic position of being able to claim childless by choice as a muli-generation family tradition.

 

That the US and parts of Europe have achieved ZPG without the Chinese strongarm tactics shows that the strongarm tactics are not necessary. Essential step here seems to be making birth control available and socially acceptable.

 

[more later]

 

Meh, final solution, ultimate solution, only solution, true solution. I think you are trying far too hard to find Third Riech references, if I were inclined to call someone a Nazi, trust me, it wouldn't be veiled.

 

*shrugs* And I've been sure to do my part as well, three daughters with one more child currently on the way.

 

Uh-huh, and how exactly do you intend to convince the Third World to voluntarily embrace birth control and stop "breeding like rabbits in Australia" in order to begin the diedown? And what measures are necessary to ensure that the current population trend of the First World remain in place?

 

Like you ever had any intention of answering. But let's make it easy. One third displace by rising sea levels in the Pacific Rim' date=' one-third facing death by famine because of crop failure in Asia, one third dying of contageous diseases in Africa as Malaria penetrates areas where it has been totally unknown before (what Markdoc calls the "slow motion tsunami").[/quote']

 

No actually I do intend of answering your fictional scenrio, although I fully imagine that you won't like and will totally disagree with my answer. Right now however, work beckons.

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Sorry' date=' the "Godwin Rule" only refers to the holocaust, which sadly was dwarfed by the "population decrease" caused by the central planners in the communist nations. Besides, if we use your expanded rule, then we've both lost (You first though. ) awhile back. [/quote']

Quick review, not finding it. Cite please?

[Christopher]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

First is this one -- which is free access' date=' not behiind the subscriber wall -- which compares this science controversy to others in the past, in particular the Copernican shift to heliocentricism and Einstein's general relativity. (There are other such controversies, but [i']Physics Today[/i] is written for physicists by physicists so they have stuck to issues that lie squarely in physics' domain.) They are much the same pattern, though the relativity controversy never went quite as political as the other two (though there was a big enough backlash against relativity that there was a letter-writing campaign against Einstein's immigration to the US).

God, how I hate those idiots. Every time somebody upturns a 100+ Year old theory/asumption, people forget that sience is about understanding reality. I can not comprehend how people can willfully ignore observed reality. I never had tiem for that BS and I still have a lot of better things to do than deny truths, even if they are to my disadvantage.

[Old Man]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Uh-huh, and how exactly do you intend to convince the Third World to voluntarily embrace birth control and stop "breeding like rabbits in Australia" in order to begin the diedown? And what measures are necessary to ensure that the current population trend of the First World remain in place?

 

It's been generally accepted that development is responsible for the reduction in First World reproduction rates. After all, reproduction gets in the way of your wife's career and your ability to watch The X Factor. The famous example is that birth rates plunged in some African village when they were given a light bulb, because suddenly they could do things indoors at night. Conversely Japanese corporations are offering significant bonuses to employees who conceive, because birth rates there are too low and no one is going to be around to take care of the extraordinarily elderly population.

[Ravor]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

McCoy

 

Awhile back you said that not treating Global Warming as totaly true and heading it off is being guilty of a billion counts of negilent homicide to which I replied that if the warmists in the enviromental movement got their way you'd get your wish of a much reduced human population.

 

Old Man

 

Very true, although I think I'd argue that the demographic shift towards urban areas as opposed to rural had a huge effect as well. However I'm not really sure that simply uplifting the developing world to First World standards is really an option for solving global warming.

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

McCoy

 

Awhile back you said that not treating Global Warming as totaly true and heading it off is being guilty of a billion counts of negilent homicide to which I replied that if the warmists in the enviromental movement got their way you'd get your wish of a much reduced human population.

 

So no cite, just a paraphrase. Thank you anyway.

 

But I believe what I said was

Difference is if you are right, no harm done. If we are right, millions, or tens or millions, or hundreds of millions, or even billions dead. (Not to mention the collateral damage of extinction of non-human species.)

 

While I'm all in favor of a smaller population, I would think that an allegedly intelligent species could bring it about through some mechanism other than letting the Horsemen ride. The idea of being an Accessory Before the Fact in a billion counts of negligent homicide bothers me. I'm funny that way.

How is that in any way, form or fashion a Godwin?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

SteveZilla' date=' [i']McCoy[/i] is referring to the predictions of mass death and waves of refugees from the areas hardest hit by Global Warming, if my brain isn't jello at the moment I seem to recall that the prediction a few years back was that we'd have around one hundred million "enviromental refugees" by 2010.

 

Um, I'm not that 'up-to-speed' on the details of climate change, but the predicted rise in ocean level would take a long time, no? Like on the order of half a century or more? While the predicted rise could displace peoples, it's spread over a not insignificant amount of time, which (afaict) would dilute that problem so much it would become almost indistinguishable from the normal flow of people relocating for other reasons (jobs, relationships, kids, etc.) Or we could do what the Dutch do and build a dike.

 

Can someone cite the prediction of GW caused crop failures? It seems to me at first glance that unless a very large fertile area suddenly becomes a second Sahara, I would think steps could be taken to counteract, with either different crops that are more suited to the prevailing climate of the area, irrigation (if it's lack of rainfall that is the problem), or even genetically engineered crops. There is also the fact that food can be imported from other areas of the globe.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

It's been generally accepted that development is responsible for the reduction in First World reproduction rates. After all' date=' reproduction gets in the way of your wife's career and your ability to watch The X Factor. The famous example is that birth rates plunged in some African village when they were given a light bulb, because suddenly they could do things indoors at night. Conversely Japanese corporations are offering significant bonuses to employees who conceive, because birth rates there are too low and no one is going to be around to take care of the extraordinarily elderly population.[/quote']

 

I wonder how much of a factor the financial aspect can be, like tax rates and overall financial 'strength' of individual families.

[McCoy]

Thread drifted to global warming

 

Um' date=' I'm not that 'up-to-speed' on the details of climate change, but the predicted rise in ocean level would take a long time, no? Like on the order of half a century or more? [/quote']

Depends. Do glaciers melt at a steady rate or can they suddenly colapse? Turns out they do both.

 

While the predicted rise could displace peoples' date=' it's spread over a not insignificant amount of time, which (afaict) would dilute that problem so much it would become almost indistinguishable from the normal flow of people relocating for other reasons (jobs, relationships, kids, etc.) [/quote']

Unless it's a case of a couple inch rise in sea level setting up storm surges that wipe out entire villages. It continues to facinate me that in the United States, and much of the rest of the world, a place like Galveston can be swept clean by a hurricane, and people will come back and rebuild right to the high tide line. "This time it will be different."

 

Or we could do what the Dutch do and build a dike.

If you are fortunate enough to live in the part of the world with a surplus to invest in infrastructre.

 

Can someone cite the prediction of GW caused crop failures?

Does the drought in the American midwest this year count?

 

It seems to me at first glance that unless a very large fertile area suddenly becomes a second Sahara' date=' I would think steps could be taken to counteract, with either different crops that are more suited to the prevailing climate of the area, irrigation (if it's lack of rainfall that is the problem), or even genetically engineered crops. There is also the fact that food can be imported from other areas of the globe.[/quote']

Irrigation requires investment in infrastructure, and water from somewhere. As glaciers disappear, year-round water sources become seasonal ones, and the water table drops. Last summer many of the irrigation wells in the midwest failed. Food can be imported, more expensively, as long as there is a surplus somewhere.

 

If there is another "year without a summer" like 1783, how much food reserves are availabe worldwide? Seriously, does anyone know? I've tried to find out.

[McCoy]

Thread drift to population

 

I wonder how much of a factor the financial aspect can be' date=' like tax rates and overall financial 'strength' of individual families.[/quote']

If anything seems to be an inverse relationship, lower the household income higher the fertility rate.

[Christopher]

Re: Thread drift to population

 

Can someone cite the prediction of GW caused crop failures? It seems to me at first glance that unless a very large fertile area suddenly becomes a second Sahara' date=' I would think steps could be taken to counteract, with either different crops that are more suited to the prevailing climate of the area, irrigation (if it's lack of rainfall that is the problem), or even genetically engineered crops. There is also the fact that food can be imported from other areas of the globe.[/quote']

1 Month without rain. Your Harvest isn't anymore. Yes you could built a new farm, or irrigation elswhere. But that requires time and money - and you still need to eat this year.

And as McCoy pointed out, you need money and a surplus elsewhere to import. Australia is one of the most important exporteurs of wheat. But within the last decade they had a serious drought, causing havoc to food prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia).

[Ravor]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

So no cite' date=' just a paraphrase. Thank you anyway.[/quote']

 

Nope, unless I have the requested info literally right at my fingertips I simply refuse to do cites in an internet debate as I've long since given up the hope that providing them actually changes anyone's mind. Still, I see that my paraphrase was close enough for you to dig up the quote.

 

But I believe what I said was

 

 

Difference is if you are right, no harm done. If we are right, millions, or tens or millions, or hundreds of millions, or even billions dead. (Not to mention the collateral damage of extinction of non-human species.)

 

While I'm all in favor of a smaller population, I would think that an allegedly intelligent species could bring it about through some mechanism other than letting the Horsemen ride. The idea of being an Accessory Before the Fact in a billion counts of negligent homicide bothers me. I'm funny that way.

 

 

 

 

How is that in any way, form or fashion a Godwin?

 

*shrugs* Can you really not see the similiarities between making the claim that anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of virtual genocide and a Godwin?

 

If there is another "year without a summer" like 1783' date=' how much food reserves are availabe worldwide? Seriously, does anyone know? I've tried to find out.[/quote']

 

This is an excellant point, the fact that no-one seems to know the answer scares me more than a little, still, as a former survivalist I'm fairly sure that you have been smart enough to stockpile just in case.

 

1 Month without rain. Your Harvest isn't anymore. Yes you could built a new farm, or irrigation elswhere. But that requires time and money - and you still need to eat this year.

And as McCoy pointed out, you need money and a surplus elsewhere to import. Australia is one of the most important exporteurs of wheat. But within the last decade they had a serious drought, causing havoc to food prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia).

 

True, but I think you are forgetting something, droughts are nothing new, look at the Great Dustbowl. Hell, I remember the last drought that struck my neck of the woods, it was a bad stretch but survivable, without having to relocate. But then again, I admit that I'm not a Third World farmer either.

 

Does the drought in the American midwest this year count?

 

Not really, droughts are nothing new, they've come and gone for at least as long as mankind has walked the Earth.

 

 

----

 

Ok, awhile back I promised that I'd get around to answering McCoy's "what if" scenrio, one billion dead or displaced, and if I remember the numbers correctly, anywhere from 300-500 million refugees over an unspecifed time period. How does this affect the average First Worlder?

 

The simple and brutal answer is that it doesn't affect us nearly as much as it should in a fair and just universe. I mean just look at how very little the plight of the Third World affects us now, seemingly unending droughts, famine, disease, and genocide have been a blight on the collective human soul for as long as I can remember and a brief glance through history suggests to me that it always has been.

 

How much did the tidal wave that hit Asia a while back really affect your lifestyle? How about the earthquake in Hati? Japan probably did somewhat because of the manifacturing that was shut down but even that had only a relatively slight ripple and Japan is part of the First World.

 

I believe that SteveZilla has the right of it, even if you're right the refugees are not going to be arriving in one massive wave of human suffering, they will come in fits and starts, and at least in the Free World will be dealt with in a fairly humane if inperfect fashion, especially as the rising temp opens up new lands. I predict a couple of bad decades, especially for people who rely on governmental or private safety nets but hardly the end of civilazation as we know it. Hell, any real change in lifestyle would come in the form of a possible cultural shift as the refugees bring their customs and beliefs to their new homes.

 

If you really want an eye opener, study how the Christians in the Third World read the Book of Revalation.

[Old Man]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

I don't follow the "droughts are nothing new" logic. Traffic accidents aren't new either but we keep inventing things like air bags and crumple zones and we're better for it. Here we have an opportunity to at least reduce the intensity of future droughts and avoid trillions of dollars in flooding, storm surge damage, and/or dike building. All of which will be borne by the taxpayer.

 

The other issue is that while the climate has warmed in the past, this time the change is extremely abrupt (relatively speaking). That will make it very hard on existing ecosystems, and it's possible that the rate of change is so fast that it could cause certain ecosystems to crash--coral reefs, for example, are at particular risk.

 

There is also the possibility of feedback loops causing the rate of warming to accelerate. Melting ice caps lower the overall albedo of the planet, causing it to absorb more solar energy. The Siberian permafrost could melt, releasing vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere and increasing the greenhouse effect. Will these come to pass? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not anxious to find out either way.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Thread drift to population

 

If anything seems to be an inverse relationship' date=' lower the household income higher the fertility rate.[/quote']

 

And the lower the income, the lower the tax rate (and if one includes the various forms of welfare, the 'tax rate' can be effectively negative).

 

Thus higher tax rates correspond to reduced reproduction. I'm not saying causation, but there is a correlation from what you said.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Thread drifted to global warming

 

Depends. Do glaciers melt at a steady rate or can they suddenly collapse? Turns out they do both.

 

Well, collapse =\= melted. And it's not like all the ice is going to collapse at once.

 

Unless it's a case of a couple inch rise in sea level setting up storm surges that wipe out entire villages.

 

Whoa, since when would a "couple inch" change in the water level make a significant difference in a storm surge that is likely going to be a many feet? And don't the tides alone alter surface level by almost two feet (more in some areas)?

 

It continues to fascinate me that in the United States' date=' and much of the rest of the world, a place like Galveston can be swept clean by a hurricane, and people will come back and rebuild right to the high tide line. "This time it will be different."[/quote']

 

You can say the same about a flood plain, a fault line, a volcano, an avalanche/landslide zone. But buildings today are not the same as buildings then, and I see no reason to think they won't be stronger yet in the future. Also, forecasting the weather is already fairly good and continuing to improve. Forecasting earthquakes and volcanic activity isn't as advanced, but it is improving as well.

 

And in the terms of loss of life, yes, the 1900 Galveston Hurricane killed an estimated 8,000 (not clear on if that was just for Galveston, or over it's entire life). But that when weather forecasting was in its infancy (if not embryonic). Knowing a storm is coming, and having the sense to evacuate, can eliminate (or at least vastly reduce) these deaths.

 

If you are fortunate enough to live in the part of the world with a surplus to invest in infrastructure.

 

Hey, if you need to dig a well, you dig a well. If you need to build a dike, you build a dike. It's not about "surplus" (and I'm not exactly clear how you mean that word), its about what has to happen. After all, the pioneers dug wells for themselves without any "surplus".

 

Does the drought in the American midwest this year count?

 

I don't know. Has it, as opposed to prior droughts, been directly linked to GW with proof?

 

Irrigation requires investment in infrastructure' date=' and water from somewhere.[/quote']

 

Rain? Aquifers? Conservative farming techniques?

 

As glaciers disappear' date=' year-round water sources become seasonal ones, and the water table drops. Last summer many of the irrigation wells in the midwest failed.[/quote']

 

Afaik, that's due primarily to over-pumping, way past the replenishment rate. Farming methods that see less of the water evaorate would reduce how much is needed to be pumped out. And usually there's a deeper aquafer that can be tapped.

 

Food can be imported' date=' more expensively, as long as there is a surplus somewhere.[/quote']

 

According to this pdf that I found online, the majority of countries are already net importers of food. I belive that many of them are capable of producing significantly more food than they currently are. For example, currently a significant amount of land (I have no exact figure) is used for growing non-edible crops like Coca, Cannabis, Opium poppy, and Tobacco, to name a few.

 

If there is another "year without a summer" like 1783' date=' how much food reserves are available worldwide? Seriously, does anyone know? I've tried to find out.[/quote']

 

When I searched "Year without a summer", I found the event from 1816. The only thing I found for 1783 was the 8 month eruption of Laki in Iceland, starting on June 8th -- but not called a "year without a summer". Both events caused lots of death & famine. But both were caused (primarily) by volcanism, not Global Warming*. Other than having adequate food reserves, there's not a lot humanity can do about massive volcanism.

 

Also, iirc, a History Channel production pointed the finger at farmers being resistant to switching from a wheat crop to a potato crop. The heavy rains during this event caused much of the wheat crop failure, while potatoes would have fared much better.

 

I did find this wikipedia entry while searching for "food reserve".

 

*Interesting that in a discussion about Global Warming, somehow a Global Cooling event has slipped in.

[Christopher]

Re: Thread drifted to global warming

 

Whoa' date=' since when would a "couple inch" change in the water level make a significant difference in a storm surge that is likely going to be a many feet? And don't the tides alone alter surface level by almost [i']two feet[/i] (more in some areas)?

Once the wind blows it towards the land, you see that 1 inch over a 200 km² area is still a hell of a lot of water. And again: Increase of average means that some regions have less water, while others have a lot more.

 

You can say the same about a flood plain' date=' a fault line, a volcano, an avalanche/landslide zone.[/quote']

Or man made Climate Change. The same amount off willfully ignorance at work.

 

Hey' date=' if you need to dig a well, you dig a well. If you need to build a dike, you build a dike. It's not about "surplus" (and I'm not exactly clear how you mean that word), its about what has to happen. After all, the pioneers dug wells for themselves without any "surplus".[/quote']

They had the resources they brought along or traded with the Native Americans. They weren't suffering from famine. And they had easily reachable, clean groundwater.

I wish you luck to find the same conditions in a poor African Village, probaly oen with recent crop fails.

 

And the dike:

You do need a lot of workers over long time who need to be fed and have to feed their families (with the work they do). Money is just our surrogate measurement of the total resources required.

 

Rain? Aquifers? Conservative farming techniques?

What amount of infrastructure does this need? What level of Industry/technology to implement/maintain? What amount of money?

 

And usually there's a deeper aquafer that can be tapped.

Maybe there is. But to what a price? There is a lot of difference between having to go 20 m deep or 400 m.

 

Let's take another important resource as example: Uranium.

The amount we have availible depends on what we are willing to/able to pay for it per Kilogramm. The same goes for every other natural resource inlcuding water. And third world nations haven't exactly abundance of resources, or even technology to even get that deep.

 

According to this pdf that I found online' date=' the majority of countries are already net importers of food.[/quote']

So the mayority of countries is dependant on the surpluss in a minority of coutnries. Also, countries tend to be rather clsoe togehter and droughts/famines don't follow Nation Borders. So in addtion to the lower production in the Net-Exporter Nations, we have even more demand for import in the others.

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

*shrugs* Can you really not see the similiarities between making the claim that anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of virtual genocide and a Godwin?.

Do you really not see the difference between premeditated homocide and negligent homocide? How does "geoncide" come into this? Did I say the casualities would be along ethnic lines? Don't belive I did. So no, to say what I actually said was a Godwin is comparing oranges and Macintosh computers.

 

This is an excellant point' date=' the fact that no-one seems to know the answer scares me more than a little, still, as a former survivalist I'm fairly sure that you have been smart enough to stockpile just in case..[/quote']

Yeah, my family could get by for a year without shopping if we really really needed to, would be very sick of beans and rice before it was over, could get through it.

 

True' date=' but I think you are forgetting something, droughts are nothing new, look at the Great Dustbowl. [/quote']

Which was if not caused, exacerbated by human activity.

 

Ok' date=' awhile back I promised that I'd get around to answering [i']McCoy[/i]'s "what if" scenrio, one billion dead or displaced, and if I remember the numbers correctly, anywhere from 300-500 million refugees over an unspecifed time period. How does this affect the average First Worlder?

 

The simple and brutal answer is that it doesn't affect us nearly as much as it should in a fair and just universe. I mean just look at how very little the plight of the Third World affects us now, seemingly unending droughts, famine, disease, and genocide have been a blight on the collective human soul for as long as I can remember and a brief glance through history suggests to me that it always has been.

 

How much did the tidal wave that hit Asia a while back really affect your lifestyle? How about the earthquake in Hati? Japan probably did somewhat because of the manifacturing that was shut down but even that had only a relatively slight ripple and Japan is part of the First World.

 

I believe that SteveZilla has the right of it, even if you're right the refugees are not going to be arriving in one massive wave of human suffering, they will come in fits and starts, and at least in the Free World will be dealt with in a fairly humane if inperfect fashion, especially as the rising temp opens up new lands. I predict a couple of bad decades, especially for people who rely on governmental or private safety nets but hardly the end of civilazation as we know it. Hell, any real change in lifestyle would come in the form of a possible cultural shift as the refugees bring their customs and beliefs to their new homes.

 

If you really want an eye opener, study how the Christians in the Third World read the Book of Revalation.

And in doing your anaysis did you consider existing treaties Australia and New Zealand have to take many of those displaced persons from the Pacific Rim? Including, I believe, promise of a homeland if necessary?

[McCoy]

Re: Thread drifted to global warming

 

Christopher covered most of your points. Just wanted to add:

Well' date=' collapse =\= melted. [/quote']

Ice or water, when it moves from land to the ocean it displaces the same amount.

 

And it's not like all the ice is going to collapse at once.

Maybe.

 

You can say the same about a flood plain' date=' a fault line, a volcano, an avalanche/landslide zone. But buildings today are not the same as buildings then, and I see no reason to think they won't be stronger yet in the future. [/quote']

Yet thousands of buildings didn't survive the last Galviston hurricane. Apparently one resident built way over code and all his neighbors' houses fell when the Big Bad Wolf huffed and puffed.

 

Don''t get me started on flood plains! Fresh out of the military I applied for a job with flood control. At the time it was in the basement of the Public Works building. I asked if that was irony or incentive?

 

Blank stare. "What do you mean?"

 

"If there is a flood -- this department is affected first."

 

Pause. "Never thought of it that way before."

 

If that was scarcasm, he needed to work on his delivery, Seemed to be honestly a new thought.

 

I didn't get the job. And now office and apartment buildings are being built right to the banks of the Rillito and Santa Cruz, both geographically young currently seasonal rivers. Geographically young rivers are also called braided rivers. You know what braided rivers do? If so that puts you ahead of locals in charge of zoning and development.

 

And in the terms of loss of life' date=' yes, the 1900 Galveston Hurricane killed an estimated 8,000 (not clear on if that was just for Galveston, or over it's entire life). But that when weather forecasting was in its infancy (if not embryonic). Knowing a storm is coming, and having the sense to evacuate, can eliminate (or at least vastly reduce) these deaths.

Believe that was the death toll for the entire storm, not just the island. How does infrastructure evacuate?

 

It's not about "surplus" (and I'm not exactly clear how you mean that word)' date=' its about what has to happen. After all, the pioneers dug wells for themselves without any "surplus".[/quote']

"Surplus" in this context means "beyond subsistance." If you have to work 365 days to feed your family for a year with nothing left over, that's subsistance. If it takes less than all your work to feed your family, if you have ANYTHING left over for reserves, barter, trade or infrastructure improvements, that's a surplus.

 

And while you say you didn't know what I ment by that word, you could state as a fact the pioneers didn't have it. But as Christopher has covered, they brought provisions with them from the surplus where they were starting out to survive until they brought in thier first crop.

 

I don't know. Has it' date=' as opposed to prior droughts, been directly linked to GW with proof? [/quote']

What proof would you accept?

 

And usually there's a deeper aquafer that can be tapped.

All aquafers all the way down? I find that a very disturbing belief. ALL resources are finite, there are not an infinite number of deeper aquafers. Sometimes there are deeper aquafers, in the United States it's becoming more usual that there isn't.

 

When I searched "Year without a summer"' date=' I found the event from 1816. The only thing I found for 1783 was the 8 month eruption of Laki in Iceland, starting on June 8th -- but not called a "year without a summer". [/quote']

My bad, should have checked references better.

 

Both events caused lots of death & famine. But both were caused (primarily) by volcanism, not Global Warming*. Other than having adequate food reserves, there's not a lot humanity can do about massive volcanism.

 

Also, iirc, a History Channel production pointed the finger at farmers being resistant to switching from a wheat crop to a potato crop. The heavy rains during this event caused much of the wheat crop failure, while potatoes would have fared much better.

Yep, an attitude of "we've always done it this way." How could that possibly be relivant to the current situation?

 

I did find this wikipedia entry while searching for "food reserve".

Thank you, more than I was able to find. "The Trust can hold up to 4 million metric tons of wheat, corn, sorghum, and rice; the authorizing statute also authorizes the Trust to hold cash in lieu of commodities." No indication of what is currently in grain and currently in cash (but feel confident if the trust was holding any cash, would have been mugged b politicians by now).

 

*Interesting that in a discussion about Global Warming' date=' somehow a Global Cooling event has slipped in. [/quote']

Was presented as an example of an event that HAS happened, that virtually everyone agrees CAN happen and probably WILL happen again, and we as an allegedly intelligent species are making absolutely no plans or contingencies for the next time it happens.

[lemming]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

On the topic of people having to move because of rising sea levels: http://socyberty.com/issues/islands-which-may-disappear-due-to-global-warming/

 

I'd use the link as a starter since it's a bit sparce on details.

[McCoy]

Thread drift and global climate change

 

Climate study confirms what skeptics scoffed at: global warming is real

 

Money for the new study, dubbed the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, came from five foundations, including one established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and another from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, widely seen as a source of money for conservative organizations and initiatives that have fought efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

 

Of note re this thread

Over the past 70 years, the team found that about one-third of the measuring stations in its global sample indicated cooling trends. Two-thirds showed warming trends, with warm regions more than offsetting cool regions in developing a global average.

In other words, local cooling can happen during global warming.

[lemming]

Re: Thread drift and global climate change

 

Climate study confirms what skeptics scoffed at: global warming is real

 

Of note re this thread

 

In other words, local cooling can happen during global warming.

 

I was just about to link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021144716.htm which is to the same study.

 

BTW, that photo that comes with the CS story is gorgeous.

[Ravor]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Do you really not see the difference between premeditated homocide and negligent homocide? How does "geoncide" come into this? Did I say the casualities would be along ethnic lines? Don't belive I did. So no' date=' to say what I actually said was a Godwin is comparing oranges and Macintosh computers.[/quote']

 

Depends on whether the context is "in real life" mode or "stupid internet rule" mode. I consider your statement to be just as much a Godwin as mine.

 

Yeah' date=' my family could get by for a year without shopping if we really really needed to, would be very sick of beans and rice before it was over, could get through it.[/quote']

 

Good for you. Now the question becomes, how much of the stockpile you saved for your family's survival should be divided up and given to those who didn't have either the wisdom or resources to provide for themselves? What about those who theorically had the resources but instead flittered them away on other things?

 

Which was if not caused' date=' exacerbated by human activity.[/quote']

 

Yes it was. However the larger point is that much like the summerless years caused by volcanos or today's droughts, civilization is able to soldier on.

 

And in doing your anaysis did you consider existing treaties Australia and New Zealand have to take many of those displaced persons from the Pacific Rim? Including' date=' I believe, promise of a homeland if necessary?[/quote']

 

Didn't have to as I assumed that most if not all of the free world would be doing pretty much the same, sans the stupidity of binding themselves to a written document and meaningless talk of homelands. Still, the last time I checked, travel between the nations of the Free World was fairly cheap and easy for citizens who felt that their country would be overwhelmed and I for one highly doubt that said treaties would be upheld regardless should the wave of refugees prove to be too much for any given country to handle.

 

I don't follow the "droughts are nothing new" logic. Traffic accidents aren't new either but we keep inventing things like air bags and crumple zones and we're better for it. Here we have an opportunity to at least reduce the intensity of future droughts and avoid trillions of dollars in flooding, storm surge damage, and/or dike building. All of which will be borne by the taxpayer.

 

The other issue is that while the climate has warmed in the past, this time the change is extremely abrupt (relatively speaking). That will make it very hard on existing ecosystems, and it's possible that the rate of change is so fast that it could cause certain ecosystems to crash--coral reefs, for example, are at particular risk.

 

There is also the possibility of feedback loops causing the rate of warming to accelerate. Melting ice caps lower the overall albedo of the planet, causing it to absorb more solar energy. The Siberian permafrost could melt, releasing vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere and increasing the greenhouse effect. Will these come to pass? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not anxious to find out either way.

 

Good points, the problem however is this, you are asking people to agree to a real sacrifice now in order to prevent a "what if" scenrio down the road that is based off a theory which may or may not be true. If you believe that your lifestyle is causing Global Warming then by all means, lower your actual enviromental footprint to whatever level you deem as sustainable. Hell, preach the good cause and convince enough of humanity to do the same volunatarily. The pushback that you run up against is when you try to use governmental powers to force your ideas on others.

 

As for "droughts are nothing new", the logic is actually quite simple, you aren't allowed to use a series of events which has been happening since the very beginning of time itself as proof of man caused global warming. Show me an area which has never been affected by a prior drought and maybe I'll be impressed.

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Depends on whether the context is "in real life" mode or "stupid internet rule" mode. I consider your statement to be just as much a Godwin as mine.

Doctor says I need to go back on the low carb diet, which means, among other things, totally eliminating straw men from my diet. So when you want to discuss waht I actually said rather than trying to put straw man arguements in my mouth, let me know. Caio until then!