Page 2 of 2

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:50 pm
by Dream of Freedom
@jennypenny

Yes I lack the "remedial stuff". After watching the video I think we would have been better off discovering oil during a cooling period.

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:04 pm
by jennypenny
Ugh, did I do it again with the remedial comment?! Sorry, I'm really not trying to be rude, just having a stressful day and not watching my words. Sorry.

I like how he explains everything in the video, which is why I have it bookmarked.

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:01 am
by stand@desk
Jacob,
If Yellowstone errupted (which is well overdue as far as I know), we'd all be goners anyway right? The ash would get us first, machines would be inoperable, and likely other chaotic effects. Maybe the other side of the world could last longer than North Americans.

But back to your earlier post, if the climate is always changing, we are always at risk of too much warming or cooling on longer scales in the later and shorter in the former. It has always been a threat and will always be one no matter what we do. And if people are not able to debate population control (which is a strong correlation to a man induced warming planet), what chance could we ever have at overcoming the warming threat? Nature will take care of it for us it sounds like and that is what it is doing.

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:26 am
by daylen
stand@desk wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:01 am
Nature will take care of it for us it sounds like and that is what it is doing.
What is nature and why would it help us?

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:03 am
by jacob
@stand@desk - You misunderstand. Geologically, the climate is always changing, yes. However, the historical range of the climate on this planet is much wider than human civilization can tolerate and it's interestingly also higher than what individual human beings can tolerate without technological aids(*). Agriculture is only possible within a very narrow range of temperatures as humanity has only developed a limited number of species (7 with rice, corn, wheat, and soy being the primary ones) for mass production of calories. Productivity will decline by ~10% for each degree of heating. This will eventually take the slack (waste) out of the food system and then nature will run its course on the human population as production keeps dropping.

Climate is always changing and there's always some volcano risk but right now it is changing faster than it ever has (even faster than the Permian extinction event which was driven by volcanic emissions) and humans are greatly increasing that risk(**) by emitting more CO2 than any volcanoes have ever done.

(*) Which go a long way. Humans after all have been able to walk on the moon by bringing a suit, their own oxygen, and a one week food supply. They have, however, not been able to establish any kind of self-sustaining outpost anywhere outside the earth system. Even Earth-based experiments have failed so far...which should be a reason for concern; and perhaps something the wannabe space-faring moguls should pay more attention to than launching electric cars into space. But point being, if we had a time machine we could send humans back to previous climates where they would literally die because the climate did not have sufficient oxygen for human needs (because humans evolved in a mid-level oxygen rich climate).

(**) Although the closer it gets to near certainty (the tipping points) the less it makes sense to talk about it as a risk as this implies some randomness. If I jump out of a high building, it doesn't make sense to talk of an increasing risk of death as I fall closer to the ground.