It's all over but for the sweating?

[oil pan 4]

The politicians are in it for the money and power, they dont care one way or the other, right or wrong.
The average joe total believer feels its the right thing to do.

[TheEnemy]

I have stopped reading Suspects posts like this. Its just fear mongering from extreemists.

When the IPCC shows the contribution for CO2 with feedbacks and then compairs it to solar forcing without feedback, then even their estimate for the change in solar forcing is lower than NASA has estimated it at (IPCC < .25 w/m^2, calculations I did based off of NASA papers I get about 0.33 w/m^2). They do admit to reducing their estimate of solar forcing.

Now when you compair a forcing with feedbacks, to a forcing without feedbacks even though those feedbacks should be applied to both is bad science. Taking data from computer models and saying that is good reliable data is bad science. Ignoring facts that don't support your theories is bad science.

I am not saying that the IPCC necessarily practices bad science as a whole, because they do quite a bit of good science. They acnowledge that there are other factors and that they do not understand much of the science concerned with the global climate.

Their are other reasons to try to be more efficient, there are more things in the exhaust. There are hazards involved with petrolium, and its refining. Oil is a finite, (though not as finite as many try to make it seem) resource.

In short relax, the world is not comming to an end, just try to live your life as best as practical. People will not be able to be perfect, but if they always try to strive to improve in a resonable matter then we will be able to thrive and do better by the environment.

Figure 2.20 - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

The IPCC will be finishing their next report next year.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by niky

Hell... If it works, I want one nearby. Imagine the jobs you could generate from running one.

Did you see the part where they show the small 1 million-gallon-a-year plant. It would cost a million dollars, return a million dollars a year and lift the locals out of poverty. Google doesn't like poor people not being able to buy their Android tablets. A few years down the road, they will be able to buy a self-driving car.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by niky

I also think that there is no doubt that the climate is changing. The big question is the balance of factors involved and whether we can actually practice effective geoengineering. Personally, the obsession with CO2 is a dangerous diversion from things that we can actually do to better the situation.

This reminds me of the premise of the film "Cool It".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZR3gsY98VU&t=0m10s

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Did you see the part where they show the small 1 million-gallon-a-year plant. ... A few years down the road, they will be able to buy a self-driving car.

The steady state economy fans here will be along shortly to explain why we aren't allowed to do that kind of thing any more.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

...The IPCC will be finishing their next report next year.

I wonder how many people will notice, and how many fewer will care ? The IPCC is a busted flush these days, they didn't even get invited to COP18.

Dr Pachauri first hinted about his ‘anticipated absence’ at COP18, while speaking at the opening session of the International Conference on Food Security in Dry Lands (FSDL) on Wednesday at Qatar University.
Later, he told Gulf Times he did not know why the IPCC has not been invited to COP18, something that has happened never before.
“I don’t know what it is. The executive secretary of the climate change secretariat has to decide. I have attended every COP and the chairman of the IPCC addresses the COP in the opening session,” he explained.

Well, if he doesn't know (or accept) by now he never will.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The steady state economy fans here will be along shortly to explain why we aren't allowed to do that kind of thing any more.

Interesting. They've got Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill on board. And I'm interested in Degrowth.

I think this could be a case of Ephemeralization. "[A] term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, [it] is the ability of technological advancement to do "more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing". Fuller's vision was that ephemeralization will result in ever-increasing standards of living for an ever-growing population despite finite resources."

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Interesting. They've got Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill on board. And I'm interested in Degrowth.

Can't help thinking of the many attempts to start this kind of "alternative society" in various forms and places over the past 40 or so years. Eventually it comes down to some people who do the real work and the rest that spend their time devoted to "sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, culture and community."

Eventually those that do the work realise the freeloaders are, well, freeloading and leave - and the community collapses. Making this a world-wide movement is just there to "enslave" (because nobody else is going to do it) those who just get on with stuff.

No, I don't want to work hard to support George Monbiot's desire to be taken seriously as a writer - thanks.

And I still have a vote, or is someone planning to take that away ?

Originally Posted by freebeard

I think this could be a case of Ephemeralization. "[A] term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller, [it] is the ability of technological advancement to do "more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing". Fuller's vision was that ephemeralization will result in ever-increasing standards of living for an ever-growing population despite finite resources."

Obviously ultimately that is impossible, but there is no evidence of us being near a limit yet - we keep on escaping those jaws even now. If you want to slow population growth help make the people breeding better off - they choose usually to have fewer children as not so many of them die and they don't have to rely on them to support themselves in old age. That means helping the 3rd world to become better of economically but of course that goes against the anti-growth idea.

So what to do, what to do ? Nobody seems to answer that one. But any other choice will involve imposing a growth limit on these people - that means force. Are you happy with that ?

On a better note anything that opposes the completely Immoral idea of Malthusianism is OK with me.

Why is it immoral ?

It was enacted for real as a policy in India during British rule - and yes I am not proud.

Some of those in charge as part of the Raj (including the top man in India) were taught by Malthus in school and believed that the only way to deal with a particularly bad famine was to allow as many people to die as required until food levels matched the population again.

So no famine relief, no food, no water - nothing - and yes people died in their thousands. Real people.

Even though it would have been possible to transport food and water into the region for only a financial cost. Those in charge decided not to as it was only defying what they had been taught.

But hey at least Malthus was proven right in this instance.

[freebeard]

Can't help thinking of the many attempts to start this kind of "alternative society" in various forms and places over the past 40 or so years. Eventually it comes down to some people who do the real work and the rest that spend their time devoted to "sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, culture and community

I just discovered Jaques Fresco. He's been at it since the 70s.

It reminds me of a concept in computer software where you increment your way up a slope until you reach a local maxima, then look across the way to a higher, adjacent maxima and realize there is a yawning chasm in your way.

Eventually those that do the work realise the freeloaders are, well, freeloading and leave - and the community collapses. Making this a world-wide movement is just there to "enslave" (because nobody else is going to do it) those who just get on with stuff.

Post-scarcity with bottom up disruptive tech, we just let the people with addicted personalities burn themselves out. It's the Darwinian thing to do.

No, I don't want to work hard to support George Monbiot's desire to be taken seriously as a writer - thanks.

I took 30 seconds to look him up, looks like he's been in the news. As for the burden; British humor?

Ephemeralization. -- Obviously ultimately that is impossible, but there is no evidence of us being near a limit yet - we keep on escaping those jaws even now.

It seems impossible, except from the perspective of Quantum Phusics or Eastern religion. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Nature."

If you want to slow population growth help make the people breeding better off - they choose usually to have fewer children as not so many of them die and they don't have to rely on them to support themselves in old age. That means helping the 3rd world to become better of economically but of course that goes against the anti-growth idea.

Agreed, except for the "against the anti'" part.

So what to do, what to do ? Nobody seems to answer that one. But any other choice will involve imposing a growth limit on these people - that means force. Are you happy with that ?

Small-L libertarian; so no.

On a better note anything that opposes the completely Immoral idea of Malthusianism is OK with me.
...
It was enacted for real as a policy in India during British rule - and yes I am not proud.

You've got the Raj, we've got the First Peoples. I like to think we are all better than that now.

[TheEnemy]

FYI--- some real scientific information

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | October 2012

Global Highlights
•The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2012 tied with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record, at 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). Records began in 1880.


•The globally-averaged land surface temperature for October 2012 was the eighth warmest October on record, at 0.92°C (1.66°F) above average. The globally-averaged ocean surface temperature tied with 2004 as the fourth warmest October on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above average.


•The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–October 2012 was the eighth warmest such period on record, at 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average.

We have been holding pretty steady for the past several years.