Earth's Warming began before the Industrial Revolution

[MplsGopher]

As always, modifying human behavior to deal with it will hurt the poor the most; am I wrong? I would think to truly make a difference, the cost of basic goods will go up significantly, meaning how many will die as the cost of food, energy, etc, rises beyond their ability to attain it?

Which basic goods would increase in price and why?

Meat is by far more expensive per calorie to consumers to buy and to producers to produce, than vegetable protein. The latter is superior anyway, as far as health and nutrition goes.

And forget about America, what happens to the poor of the world as the cost of cheap American grain goes up?

American grain feeds the world's poor? Somehow I doubt that.

 

[MplsGopher]

Finally someone who is willing to talk about over-population... much of the world's problems can be traced to too many people needing a finite number of resources. I sure don't have the answers for how to realistically address over-population but I fully agree that it has to be part of any conversation. Climate change... check. Endangered species and habitat destruction... check. Pollution and poverty... check.

We've been able to engineer our way out of our over-population problems thus far but there is truly a carrying capacity on this planet if we hope that it functions in any natural way and we should take steps towards addressing this.

I do agree that "artificially cheap" stuff has allowed humans to over populate.

But which governments are going to pull any kind of trigger to let people starve to death, due to lack of jobs and/or lack of food?

I'm afraid humanity just doesn't work that way. Even if it would be better for the overall survival of the human species and the planet if it did.

 

[BarnBurner]

Finally someone who is willing to talk about over-population... much of the world's problems can be traced to too many people needing a finite number of resources. I sure don't have the answers for how to realistically address over-population but I fully agree that it has to be part of any conversation. Climate change... check. Endangered species and habitat destruction... check. Pollution and poverty... check.

We've been able to engineer our way out of our over-population problems thus far but there is truly a carrying capacity on this planet if we hope that it functions in any natural way and we should take steps towards addressing this.

What is your fuel source to heat your residence? Using renewable energy tonight?

 

[MplsGopher]

What is your fuel source to heat your residence? Using renewable energy tonight?

This home has a natural gas burning furnace, like I assume almost every home who has access to that utility in the upper midwest does. And if not that, then some kind of combustible fuel that is stored in a tank.

Why does that prove that we should never try to switch to something that doesn't pollute?

 

[BarnBurner]

 

[cncmin]

The fundamental question remains. Let's put it another way, how many millions (billions) do we kill to combat global warming? Your first link said 1.5 Celsius. 1.5 celsius, are you serious? We're fucked.

It's not like global warming is stopping at + 1.5 C, it'll keep going up so long as our output is higher than the steady state temperature for the given concentration of greenhouse gases. At this point, the greenhouse gases already generated guarantee warming for some time forward, even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow. Also, 1.5 C = 2.5 F. What's the difference in average temperature between plant climate zones, about 5-10 F? Entire ecosystems change on temperature changes not that far above your stated value of 1.5 C.

Finally, you equate a fossil fuel economy with economic profit, and yet there is no reason that has to be true in 5, 10, 15 years down the road. How much money has the United States of America spent on military and diplomatic expenditures in the Middle East and across the globe to protect a fluent oil supply? How much money has the United States spent on developing an oil-based economy at the expense of far smaller expenditures on other energy supplies? The oil/fossil fuel economy is mature after the benefits of massive national expenditures into it for a very, very long time (including its protection by many $trillions of dollars spent on military protection). If we put the same monetary and time investment into other energy sources, including advanced nuclear and renewable energy sources, suddenly the gaps in energy prices would decrease dramatically. There is a bigger picture here.

 

[Wally]

We should be worrying about over population way, way more than global warming.

I agree there.

 

[howeda7]

I agree there.

I'd say the two issues are intertwined.

 

[BarnBurner]

 

[MennoSota]

You think I give a shit about them?

God I hate morons...

Self-hate is unhealthy.

 

[MennoSota]

I do agree that "artificially cheap" stuff has allowed humans to over populate.

But which governments are going to pull any kind of trigger to let people starve to death, due to lack of jobs and/or lack of food?

I'm afraid humanity just doesn't work that way. Even if it would be better for the overall survival of the human species and the planet if it did.

This Socialists just kill the human in the womb as their population control. Kill the innocent and unseen so the workers don't complain...

 

[MennoSota]

It's not like global warming is stopping at + 1.5 C, it'll keep going up so long as our output is higher than the steady state temperature for the given concentration of greenhouse gases. At this point, the greenhouse gases already generated guarantee warming for some time forward, even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow. Also, 1.5 C = 2.5 F. What's the difference in average temperature between plant climate zones, about 5-10 F? Entire ecosystems change on temperature changes not that far above your stated value of 1.5 C.

Finally, you equate a fossil fuel economy with economic profit, and yet there is no reason that has to be true in 5, 10, 15 years down the road. How much money has the United States of America spent on military and diplomatic expenditures in the Middle East and across the globe to protect a fluent oil supply? How much money has the United States spent on developing an oil-based economy at the expense of far smaller expenditures on other energy supplies? The oil/fossil fuel economy is mature after the benefits of massive national expenditures into it for a very, very long time (including its protection by many $trillions of dollars spent on military protection). If we put the same monetary and time investment into other energy sources, including advanced nuclear and renewable energy sources, suddenly the gaps in energy prices would decrease dramatically. There is a bigger picture here.

You need to move to Bhutan...

 

[Wally]

Self-hate is unhealthy.

It is and I have a lot. I can admit it.

 

[Wally]

This Socialists just kill the human in the womb as their population control. Kill the innocent and unseen so the workers don't complain...

Capitalists like to keep their slaves pacified. Christians make the best slaves.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Wind energy is great in the spring and fall where wind is abundant, and demand is lower. We can generate a large portion of our electricity with wind during those months.

It will almost always be useless in severe winter cold, and extreme summer heat. Whatever doesn't freeze up, or cut out due to high heat, will likely fail to generate much electricity due to low wind with large high pressure systems overhead during the peak of the cold/heat.

 

[MennoSota]

Capitalists like to keep their slaves pacified. Christians make the best slaves.

Slavery and death is the mainstay of communism.
Capitalism is based upon contract. The buyer and the seller negotiate. The seller sells his time and the buyer pays for that time.
Slavery is not capitalism. If you had a f&cking clue you would know this, but apparently you skipped economics before you dropped out of school.

 

[ecoperson]

What is your fuel source to heat your residence? Using renewable energy tonight?

What does that have to do with overpopulation? My wife and I decided to not have kids for this reason. Most of our friends only have 1 or 2 so they are at least keeping under the replacement rate. My wife and I are like another set of parents to a half dozen of our friends' kids.

As for energy... yes... we pay more for green energy. We put less than 5K miles a year on our one car. (Wife came with car... I went almost 15 years after college without one before we married.) We don't buy disposable crap. How about you? How do you make a positive impact?

 

[ecoperson]

I do agree that "artificially cheap" stuff has allowed humans to over populate.

But which governments are going to pull any kind of trigger to let people starve to death, due to lack of jobs and/or lack of food?

I'm afraid humanity just doesn't work that way. Even if it would be better for the overall survival of the human species and the planet if it did.

No need to allow people to starve to death. Population growth isn't about encouraging deaths... it's about dramatically slowing down the number of births. We need to provide strong incentives to NOT have kids. Imagine if they removed the tax credits for having children and instead charged higher taxes for having more kids to weigh on the system. Or simply pay people a few thousand dollars to get a vasectomy or their tubes tied. That would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the costs of services in the future. There would be millions of people who would line up for the opportunity. People could still adopt children if they truly wanted to raise a family 5 or 10 years later.

With the technological advances in agriculture over the last 70 years, there would be no famine as there would be ample food for everyone. Without the immense competition for resources, one could raise the standard of living for the remaining billions.

The alternative is that there will always be famine and a scarcity of resources for a large percentage of the population.

 

[BarnBurner]

What does that have to do with overpopulation? My wife and I decided to not have kids for this reason. Most of our friends only have 1 or 2 so they are at least keeping under the replacement rate. My wife and I are like another set of parents to a half dozen of our friends' kids.

As for energy... yes... we pay more for green energy. We put less than 5K miles a year on our one car. (Wife came with car... I went almost 15 years after college without one before we married.) We don't buy disposable crap. How about you? How do you make a positive impact?

Totally avoided the question. As I suspected......

 

[MplsGopher]

No need to allow people to starve to death. Population growth isn't about encouraging deaths... it's about dramatically slowing down the number of births. We need to provide strong incentives to NOT have kids. Imagine if they removed the tax credits for having children and instead charged higher taxes for having more kids to weigh on the system. Or simply pay people a few thousand dollars to get a vasectomy or their tubes tied. That would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the costs of services in the future. There would be millions of people who would line up for the opportunity. People could still adopt children if they truly wanted to raise a family 5 or 10 years later.

With the technological advances in agriculture over the last 70 years, there would be no famine as there would be ample food for everyone. Without the immense competition for resources, one could raise the standard of living for the remaining billions.

The alternative is that there will always be famine and a scarcity of resources for a large percentage of the population.

Generally agree here. Assume the start of your second sentence was meant to be Population growth control.

Birth rates already are coming down for most ethnicity and cultures. The educated women become, the less babies they tend to have in their lifetimes, in general.

 

[MplsGopher]

Wind energy is great in the spring and fall where wind is abundant, and demand is lower. We can generate a large portion of our electricity with wind during those months.

It will almost always be useless in severe winter cold, and extreme summer heat. Whatever doesn't freeze up, or cut out due to high heat, will likely fail to generate much electricity due to low wind with large high pressure systems overhead during the peak of the cold/heat.

Almost like we should generate in the spring and fall, and then store all that excess for use later.

 

[BarnBurner]

TUCKER CARLSON: When it got cold in Texas, windmills failed and people died

 

[MplsGopher]

TUCKER CARLSON: When it got cold in Texas, windmills failed and people died

Wind energy provides barely a little dent in the overall production capacity, and yet it was solely responsible for the blackouts of huge metros in the state?

Which one is it?

 

[Wally]

Slavery and death is the mainstay of communism.
Capitalism is based upon contract. The buyer and the seller negotiate. The seller sells his time and the buyer pays for that time.
Slavery is not capitalism. If you had a f&cking clue you would know this, but apparently you skipped economics before you dropped out of school.

Truth hurts don't it B....

 

[BarnBurner]

 

[Wally]

TUCKER CARLSON: When it got cold in Texas, windmills failed and people died

No.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas said the grid lost some 34,000 megawatts of power. Energy sources powering the grid were knocked offline, most of which were powered by natural gas, coal or nuclear energy, according to Houston Public Radio.


Why are Coal and Nuclear plants going offline?
Conspiracy?
Russian Hackers?

 

[ecoperson]

View attachment 11693

God isn't a spiteful a55hole like some of the denizens of this board.

 

[Wally]

God isn't a spiteful a55hole like some of the denizens of this board.

Shoot, If there is a God I definitely hope he is an old testament bastard...

 

[GoodasGold]

L-L-Let’s t-talk about g-g-global w-warming p-p-please. It h-h-helps.

 

[howeda7]