Floods Poll

[sqril]

Quoting eagle from 16:50, 27th Jul 2007
CO2 dissolves better in cold water than warm. (Warm Coke goes flat more quickly than chilled)
.

true, although currently, despite warming, the oceans are still overall a carbon sink -absorbing more co2 than they release as oceanic levels of CO2 equilibriate with the increased atmospheric levels.
incidently, in absorbing CO2 the oceans become more acidic and calcium carbonate becomes less readily available, thus endangering coral reefs and other organisms that need CaCO3 to build thier shells


editted to make sense

[Midget]

Just a thought but I think the direct consequences of our ever increasing human population are much more likely to cause us grief (if they already don't) than or rather before the ice caps melt possibly in the next 100 years.

If we all breed and all our many grand-kids get cars we'll be fucked from carcinogens and disease caused by all the shit everywhere, and everyone living too long too, getting dementia not enough people to clear up the shit.

So my personal solution is not to breed and not to drive a car. Or we could go one step further and kill the breeders and motorists.

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg new shite
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100090

[Steveo]

While the science presented in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' may have been skewed, the part people seem to conveniently ignore is the politics behind global warming and the response of the scientific community when it comes to so-called 'climate change deniers'.

The reason, according to the show, that so much science is available to back up anthropogenic climate change and it's consequences is that funding is available for that work more than in other area. Also, the orignial impetus for all this reasearch was to prove that low carbon nuclear power was a good option.

'Climate change denial' is fast becoming so stigmatised, it's no longer a position anyone but the most massochistic of people can hold.

I, personally, doubt the apocalyptic predictions that abound. I also think anyone who calls themselves educated should not accept anything at face value, which far too many people do in this case.

Finally, climate change isn't the most important issue facing me or society as a whole right now. Crime, poverty, unemployment, AIDS and other issues all rank higher in my books.

I said it earlier, and I'll say it again: When I hear about climate change I can't help but think of Dr Goebbels.

[hr]

Get off my internet.

[Haunted]

All problems inevitably lead back to over population.

How long do you think the planet can support an ever increasing human populace?

Be fruitful and multiply indeed.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Humphrey]

Quoting Steveo from 18:11, 27th Jul 2007
While the science presented in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' may have been skewed, the part people seem to conveniently ignore is the politics behind global warming and the response of the scientific community when it comes to so-called 'climate change deniers'.

The reason, according to the show, that so much science is available to back up anthropogenic climate change and it's consequences is that funding is available for that work more than in other area. Also, the orignial impetus for all this reasearch was to prove that low carbon nuclear power was a good option.

'Climate change denial' is fast becoming so stigmatised, it's no longer a position anyone but the most massochistic of people can hold.

I, personally, doubt the apocalyptic predictions that abound. I also think anyone who calls themselves educated should not accept anything at face value, which far too many people do in this case.

Finally, climate change isn't the most important issue facing me or society as a whole right now. Crime, poverty, unemployment, AIDS and other issues all rank higher in my books.

I said it earlier, and I'll say it again: When I hear about climate change I can't help but think of Dr Goebbels.

[hr]

Get off my internet.

‘The great climate change swindle’ was a flawed documentary in many ways because it oversimplified the arguments, misrepresented scientists views, selectively quoted from the evidence and generally talked down to the opposition. The thing though that is often overlooked is that that is exactly what movies like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and flawed papers like the ‘Stern Review’ have also done. All ‘The Climate Change Swindle’ did was use the climate change doomsayers tactics against them. That I think was the point of the whole exercise. Until there is a mature debate around the issues and we agree on real measures instead of futile gestures no progress is ever going to be made.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Humphrey]

Quoting Haunted from 18:20, 27th Jul 2007
All problems inevitably lead back to over population.

How long do you think the planet can support an ever increasing human populace?

Be fruitful and multiply indeed.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

Underpopulation is the biggest problem Europe will face in the next 50 years, which is why immigration (both attracting immigrants and assimulating immigrants) is such a key issue.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/public ... ration.htm

NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) -- The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio -- i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person -- will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.

Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

Major findings of this report include:

In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

The report concludes "The expected global upheaval is without parallel in human history."


[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Jono]

But I thought there was no debate? The debate's over; we're all going to die!

It's already been (kinda) said; but the atmosphere surrounding global warming and climate change (no pun intended) looks very much like the prevailing attitudes regarding ideas of eugenics and racial purity in the early 20th century.

In any event; if combating climate change is such a long-term goal, then we're pretty buggered either way. Democratic governments need quick fixes and headline grabbing initiatives. They baulk at the idea of the prolonged commitment of resources, whose benefits won’t be seen until well beyond their terms of office (We've seen how quickly climate change has become a popular issue. It's not going to be too long before the mass media stop giving a fuck, and move onto pastures-new). As for China, Russia, and all the rest with state-controlled media; who can choose to ignore and suppress grassroots activism. What are the chances of getting them to fall in line?

The way I see it, climate change is coming. Our institutions are fundamentally unequal to the task of preventing it. What we need therefore, is to accept that we’re fucked, get a proper analysis of the likely outcomes, and start planning accordingly.




[hr]


Exclusive to The Sinner, and all other fora.

[Haunted]

Quoting Humphrey from 20:48, 27th Jul 2007
...

What is this?
Of course developed countries have low birth rates.
Why are you limiting your self to developed worlds when they contribute so little to population growth?

By 2050 the population of the PLANET (not just cosy little europe) will be over 9 billion. An increase equivalent to the entire world population of 1950 being added to the current.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... pulat&Cr1= (look I can quote the UN too).

To consider a decrease in population as a problem is sheer insanity. Ageing maybe a problem, but thats a very different kettle.
Measures such as increasing the pension age are coming in to help deal with the extra longevitiy we enjoy. Employment is alot less labourous than it was 'back in the day' and so people can work for much longer now than ever before.

More people = more farming, more pollution and ultimately less biodiversity (as a result from our expansion into nature). This is bad. Nature usually has methods to prevent a species from becoming too numerous (plagues, natural disasters etc) except that we are able (to a degree) to combat such measures making them ineffective (please don't read as saying we should stop curing the sick etc, thats moronic). So, since we are taking the power from nature we must also take the responsibility (*spiderman) and start sorting out the mess we are slowly making.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Humphrey]

Quoting Haunted from 21:28, 27th Jul 2007
Quoting Humphrey from 20:48, 27th Jul 2007
...


What is this?
Of course developed countries have low birth rates.
Why are you limiting your self to developed worlds when they contribute so little to population growth?

Apologies, that wasn't really a counter to your point about overpopulation being a massive worldwide problem. I was pointing out that whilst overpopulation is a problem in the developing world, in the developing world underpopulation is the issue, and in europe in paticular it is a massive problem.

To consider a decrease in population as a problem is sheer insanity. Ageing maybe a problem, but thats a very different kettle.
Measures such as increasing the pension age are coming in to help deal with the extra longevitiy we enjoy. Employment is alot less labourous than it was 'back in the day' and so people can work for much longer now than ever before.

No I really don't agree with this, and neither do most demographers. While I admire your optimism, the picture is far grimmer than you make out. To take one example, you mention that pension entitlement can simply be raised, but one cannot pull a similar trick with NHS treatment. To quote the EU

"There has never, in Europe's recent history, been a period of sustainable economic growth without population growth to create opportunities for investment and consumption.

The annual rate of potential growth of Europe's GDP is projected to fall from today's 2-2.25 per cent to 1.5 per cent in 2015 and 1.25 per cent in 2040"

Of course Western European countires such as the UK and France can always attract immigrants (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wimm15.xml) but for other countires the future is far more uncertain.


[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Gubbins]

Quoting oddly familiar from 16:05, 27th Jul 2007
from a cursory inspection of the graphs I see that they show no particular increase in the average of solar irradience since around about 1951 onwards, yet the graph above that shows clear rises in temperature in that same time period. The scale on the time axis is different in the two graphs, making it look more like a correlation than it otherwise would. The first two thirds of that solar graph is irrelevant

Ok, I've made my point, but I thought I'd address this. It very much depends on which version of the data you use. We've only had accurate measurements of the solar constant since we've launched spacecraft to measure it (even then data is patchy), and global temperature estimates vary wildly.

The time periods of the two graphs are different - that's because those were the first two decent graphs I could find. I assure you that the drop in the late 17th Century coincides with the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum. I do find the minimum around 1900 and the sharp increase in both afterwards interesting. The two only don't seem correlated after about 1940. It could just be that a global tipping-point was reached then. However, I do wonder whether we have only been seeing the true effects of manmade global warming from that point onwards? If you do the maths, the increase from 1860 to 1960 roughly corresponds to 0.25C, which would explain - almost exactly - the increase as far as 1975.

This links in with what Romantic had to say about Eric Priest et al. The A&G article is worth a read if you can get your hands on it. I for one don't hold much weight by the cosmic ray theory, though I'm not exactly the authority to ask on that one.

The trouble is that the coverage and indeed research is skewed, as people have pointed out. You really need to work out what's happening for yourself and form your own conclusions.

It is true, however, what Midget and others have pointed out, that overpopulation is one of the biggest problems that we face. Not necessarily so much in Europe, although we will have to cope with increasingly columnular population 'pyramid', but in the developing world and nations that are becoming industrialised, where the population is still skyrocketing.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting Humphrey from 21:41, 27th Jul 2007

Quoting Haunted from 21:28, 27th Jul 2007
Quoting Humphrey from 20:48, 27th Jul 2007
...


What is this?
Of course developed countries have low birth rates.
Why are you limiting your self to developed worlds when they contribute so little to population growth?

Apologies, that wasn't really a counter to your point about overpopulation being a massive worldwide problem. I was pointing out that whilst overpopulation is a problem in the developing world, in the developing world underpopulation is the issue, and in europe in paticular it is a massive problem.

To consider a decrease in population as a problem is sheer insanity. Ageing maybe a problem, but thats a very different kettle.
Measures such as increasing the pension age are coming in to help deal with the extra longevitiy we enjoy. Employment is alot less labourous than it was 'back in the day' and so people can work for much longer now than ever before.

No I really don't agree with this, and neither do most demographers. While I admire your optimism, the picture is far grimmer than you make out. To take one example, you mention that pension entitlement can simply be raised, but one cannot pull a similar trick with NHS treatment. To quote the EU

"There has never, in Europe's recent history, been a period of sustainable economic growth without population growth to create opportunities for investment and consumption.

The annual rate of potential growth of Europe's GDP is projected to fall from today's 2-2.25 per cent to 1.5 per cent in 2015 and 1.25 per cent in 2040"

Of course Western European countires such as the UK and France can always attract immigrants (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wimm15.xml) but for other countires the future is far more uncertain.

Fair enough, I can agree with most of that.
Though having an economy based around growth when resources are not infinite was always going to lead to trouble. Surely a healthy system can be maintained whilst also being static?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Cain]

Going back to the floods, I've just watched a Fox News report, with a reporter in Tewkesbury which is "about three hours west of London and has been cut off from London, and indeed the rest of the world, with the floods"

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[ascii]

Quoting Jono from 21:03, 27th Jul 2007 It's already been (kinda) said; but the atmosphere surrounding global warming and climate change (no pun intended) looks very much like the prevailing attitudes regarding ideas of eugenics and racial purity in the early 20th century.

What grounds do you have to link the issue to eugenics? A different claim could be that the climate change deniers are similar to the scientists that doubted the harmful effects of smoking for so long.

However neither of those statements bring us any closer to agreeing whether the scientific consensus on global warming is correct.

[Jono]

Quoting ascii from 11:17, 28th Jul 2007

Quoting Jono from 21:03, 27th Jul 2007 It's already been (kinda) said; but the atmosphere surrounding global warming and climate change (no pun intended) looks very much like the prevailing attitudes regarding ideas of eugenics and racial purity in the early 20th century.

What grounds do you have to link the issue to eugenics? A different claim could be that the climate change deniers are similar to the scientists that doubted the harmful effects of smoking for so long.

However neither of those statements bring us any closer to agreeing whether the scientific consensus on global warming is correct.

Purely emotive grounds, as with your tobacco comparison.

Still; large quantities of resources have been sunk into the field. There’s a “Consensus”, and those who speak out against it are ostracised, have their funding withdrawn, and get painted as tools of the petroleum industry. There are popular and political meanings that go hand in hand with the science (or in spite of it). Government policy gets made around climate change. I could go on.

A pretty similar set of events was occurring in the 20’s and 30’s. It wasn’t just the Nazis. Plenty of governments, including the US and UK, introduced eugenics legislation; the scientific community having painted millenarian pictures of a society wracked and paralysed by hereditary defects if something wasn’t done “Now, this minute, if-not sooner!”

Perhaps this is an extreme example; but it says something about what can happen when “science goes wild”, gets drunk on consensus, and moves to fast.



[hr]


Exclusive to The Sinner, and all other fora.

[Timata]

Quoting cain from 22:07, 27th Jul 2007
Going back to the floods, I've just watched a Fox News report, with a reporter in Tewkesbury which is "about three hours west of London and has been cut off from London, and indeed the rest of the world, with the floods"

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

I'm not sure I'd even notice, or care, if I were cut off from London.

Usually, I'd probably be pretty unaffected by environmental disasters (they happen, move on, drink tea). But I *was* stuck on the M5 for nine hours in stationary traffic last Friday, while on holiday. The one time in four years I venture into the 'south' and that happens. No food, no water, no toilets (apart from the kind people with the caravan in front of us) and only BBC Hereford and Worcester as a distraction. I'm just thankful I live on a hill.