patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Ceffer says

Right. If they shoot a few babys in the face, they won't have to worry about this behavior any more.

Exactly and a lot of them, let's be realistic, will be terrorists.

Every parent of a 2yo can tell you, they're all terrorists. To annihilate them as part of the Global War on Terror, airlines offer them free passage as lap children.

Hater says

Does anyone know what the ideal temp and co2 percentage is for human life.

This is an extremely vague question. That is one reason no one has engaged.
Ideal for who?
Are you talking only physiologically or through secondary effects?
Would a huge plague that reduced human population by 90% ultimately be good for human life?

Science is settled by theory and experiment. It is not settled by debate. Debate is just what you have before science is settled, before people become aware of the speed science, and to a lesser extent when some new evidence comes along that seems to contradict known theories. Occasionally it does contradict and change things, but usually it just needs an explanation.

Science, by definition, is never 'settled'...
It remains forever in a state of flux, offering up experiment and result, but never the Final Word...

YesYNot says

Science is settled by theory and experiment. It is not settled by debate.

Fucking White Male says

Thats really quirky coming from a guy who accepts the extreme minority of instances of police/whites/anyone but blacks shooting other blacks simply because it makes the news for a few months while politically expedient.

Literate much ? I have no idea what you're saying, but I could guess. You think I'm not critical enough of black dirt bags that shoot other blacks and that I'm overly critical of incompetent cops and pussy cops that are afraid of their own shadows. It's totally wrong of me to think that we should demand cops be competant especially with respect to discharging their firearms in to citizens.

Ironman says

So explain this:

Why don't you play devils advocate and predict what I'll say. I'll help out if you get it wrong.

www.youtube.com/embed/Y_AV_V3utWM

www.youtube.com/embed/zQ7q5qH-tWU

Fuck airlines.

Ironman, your trolling is found wanting.

Hater, your question is vague. What is best for humanity is not a scientific question. What science can tell us what is likely to happen to our climate. That's it. How we assess risk, pay for the costs, etc is political. How we value damages and benefits to different people's is subjective.

Consider the fact that there is only one world and while you guys are virtue signaling by changing your lightbulbs to LEDS and driving a PRIUS, a massive part of the world is still burning shit, releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere, and dumping chemicals wherever they please, etc.

As Democratic & Republican voters intend.
Or they would stop crap like this.

Ironman says

So Apple would not find out that Uber had been secretly identifying and tagging iPhones even after its app had been deleted and the devices erased

Glad Apple protected it's users.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Clearly, the pilot should have pulled a roscoe and emptied it into the babies' heads to teach everyone a lesson and then had the loud guy arrested and thrown into the jet intake on a taxiing plane to give the evening news something for other passengers to consider before they fuck with shareholder value

Back in the good old days of coal fired steam ships, the crew could use uppity passengers for fuel, confiscate their belongings, and nobody would make a video or even say anything about it. Happened all the time. You could get in an overbooked ship and, if you shut your damned pie hole, end up with a cabin to yourself. Those were the days when people dressed nicely for travel.

Hater says

YesYNot says

Would a huge plague that reduced human population by 90% ultimately be good for human life?

Yes! For the remaining 10 percent.

10% can stay busy shutting down nuclear reactors.

https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

When finished,they can figure out what to do with all the spent fuel.

https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/spent_fuel/

It's not.

Hater says

I'm looking for degrees Fahrenheit warmer or cooler than now and co2 parts per million? What is the ideal for humans on earth?

How is my question vague?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

Carbon Dioxide Concentration - Comfort Levels
CO2 acceptance and comfort level

temperature
odor
high or low levels of gases
Since CO2 is exhaled by people at predictable levels the content of Carbon Dioxide in the indoor air can be used as a significant indication of air quality.

Fresh supply air correlates to the indoor level of CO2 as:

15 cfm ventilation rate per occupant - aprox. 1000 ppm CO2
20 cfm ventilation rate per occupant - aprox. 800 ppm CO2
ppm - parts per million
Normal CO2 Levels
The effects of CO2 on adults at good health can be summarized to:

normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
acceptable levels:

It varies based on each humans metabolism ( energy burn rate ).
a good guess is between 60 and 78, based on the individual.

Hater says

What is the ideal for humans on earth?

The only way to prove it is if she was shown to be deaf...

inviting women to your hotel is sexual harassment? fascinating

Only because she wasn't invited back to the show.
To avoid these charges in the future, all show bookings should be issued in 3 show sets, with any late nite room invites occurring after the 1st show only...

BayArea says

inviting women to your hotel is sexual harassment? fascinating

Hater says

How is my question vague?

I've hinted at it, but maybe it wasn't clear. This is a simplification of two philosophies to make a point:
John Stuart Mill described morality as being based on what increased total human happiness.
John Locke emphasized personal rights and freedoms.
Both Mill and Locke's writings permeate our constitution, bill of rights, and thinking. These two ideas are often in tension, and a discussion of climate change is one example of this.

Let's say people in Minnesota will experience cheaper food and cheaper heating bills if the earth warms 2 degrees C. Let's say some additional people in FL will die each year due to mosquito borne diseases common in tropical conditions. Let's say that these are the only two impacts. Is this good for humanity? It depends on whether you prefer Mill's or Locke's view of what is good.

Let's say that the temperature rises 4 oC, 20% of LA (Louisiana and parts of wider la la land) and FL is submerged (coastal areas where much development exists). People in northern US states have warmer weather and live in a more 'temperate' climate. Is that good for humanity? Part of the answer depends on weather you account for the cost associated with abandoning and rebuilding infrastructure. Do you want to account for that?

In addition to local benefits, people in the Dakotas will have to account for other changes in the country and the world. Although their local climate might have improved, Dakotans might suffer financial costs due to associations with the rest of the country. The world isn't completely stable as it is. People live in predefined zones (countries). Some countries will benefit, while others will suffer dramatically due to this change. The people in those countries will not suffer in silence. They will leave and fight for different territory. No one knows exactly what will happen, but some of the risks in this post are widely understood and accepted.

One simple answer is that it would be best to avoid large fast changes, because sudden disruptions will incur large costs and political instability. Another aspect of that is that we've evolved to handle earth as it currently is, so for the people here now, it would be best not to teraform it it.

In one of your posts, you said that a 90% reduction in population would be good. This implies maybe you value the long term survival of the human species over the fate of humans living today. If that is your value system, the answer would be different than if you were more interested in preventing catastrophe in the near term (next 100-200 years).

The earth will be fine. I doubt global warming will make Human's extinct. The biggest threat from global warming to humans is probably by causing global instability that leads to nuclear war and collapse of civilization. In that case, I'd guess some small populations that have avoided industrialization will survive. As for other species, well, life is adaptable. Some will survive, others, will go extinct, and evolution will go on. Prior to all this, we will probably experience predictable large economic and social costs.

If we avoid global warming, I think that human population is on a collision coarse for some sort of collapse anyway, hopefully caused by deliberate reduction in birthrate, but more probably caused by disease. Based on my value system, I hope it is orderly, even if it is just poverty and hunger causing people to slow reproduction or just die young.

In order to make the question less vague you would have to add some constraints.
For example, you could say you were talking about optimizing food production or optimizing the average standard of living for the current population. If it is the latter, you would have to specify whether or not you want to include the cost of rebuilding infrastructure that might have to be mothballed.

In any case, it is an interesting question in that it could instigate a good discussion. I've given you plenty of opportunity to jump in and add some value, but I don't really think that is your goal.

Ironman says

Is that so difficult?

Ironman, this how informative and interesting your crap posts are: what is better pie or skis? Just answer the question, and don't get it wrong. I don't want to see a multi-word answer, either.

Your posts are evidence that idiocracy didn't go far enough.

Ironman says

Kinda make 400 ppm a nothingburger, doesn't it??

This has nothing to do with why people are worried about climate change. You probably understand this. If you don't there is little help for you. We don't know which it is, because you refuse to answer the question like an obstinate 2 yr old.

YesYNot says

They refuse to answer whether or not THEIR question is in regards to direct physiological constraints or indirect impacts on the environment.

People live in places on this planet where the temperature is near 0, and people live in places where the temperature is near 100. The ideal temperature depends on your desires. The human body can only survive in a range of temperature, if it's too hot, you die, if it's too cold you die. Is this your first go at trying to get through second grade? Holy crap

Hater says

YesYNot says

Would a huge plague that reduced human population by 90% ultimately be good for human life?

Yes! For the remaining 10 percent.

In other words, I asked you a question to help you communicate what you meant by your vague and meaningless question. To my yes or no question you said yes with an exclamation point. Then you qualified it by adding a fragment. By using poor English, your reply was difficult to interpret. Now, you clarify that statement by saying you really did not mean Yes! You meant only for the remaining 10%. In other words, you refused to answer my original question. Why should I or anyone else for that matter answer your question when you will not answer mine?

You guys offered up an ill-posed question that is as useful as 'what is better for humanity, skiing or pie?' Then you discuss a bunch of stuff that has less to do with global warming than the price of tea in China, and you claim victory. This is a useless thread.

By refusing to take part in any meaningful conversation and refusing to discuss the implications of global warming, you deniers are ceding the whole game. I can't take the stupidity any more. I'm out.

I'm adding this story to my list of reasons why I will always use the website instead of an app.

They won't, because it kills their argument for more tax revenue...

Hater says

I ask you true believers, what is the ideal earth temperature for human life in Fahrenheit and what is the ideal level of CO2 in parts per million?

If you COULD answer this simple question you might have more credibility.

Hater says

Is that a good enough answer?

Here's the original question.
HEY YOU says

Would a huge plague that reduced human population by 90% ultimately be good for human life?

You didn't answer it. It's a yes or no question.

I'm super excited for the return of the Pilocene. It's gonna be primitive as f*! Epoch!

Hater says

How are you going to stop the volcanoes from heating up the world?

Apparently in your world 35 billion metric tons of CO2 is less than 1 billion?

Ironman says

You do know that dinosaurs and cavemen ...

Caveman were deeply agrarian needing stable farm conditions to support their massive populations too? That's amazing! They had highly specialized jobs and a stratified society working together in massive collaborative tribes/nations as well, all due to their ability to farm? Wow! So cool. Ironman, you teach us all so much. When are you posting your next paper about pre-historic tribal life?

(Point being: humans can survive 2 degree change, but the world as we know it will become radically different. It's as much as 25meters of sea level rise combined with much more sever droughts and disruptions due to weather. Kiss our large populations goodbye. Humanity will go into a massive period of decline.)

Rew says

humans can survive 2 degree change

Humans can survive much more than that. Perhaps the world can support fewer people, but perhaps overpopulation is the real problem.

Point being, things tend to self-regulate. Climate change, if real, can bring huge business opportunities. Just make sure you are in the right place.

Hater says

Does anyone know what the ideal temp and co2 percentage is for human life.

Human life is dependent on the life around it and current Human societies are tuned to live in conditions on Earth, as they are, right now. Humans can live in large range of different temperatures and CO2 percentages but we are efficiently geared to today. We have adapted and built current human societies here and now with these conditions. Put enough wiggle and wobble in the system, and yes, some humans will die due to the weather. But the majority will die due to the secondary effects on: ag, disease, migrations, sever storms, etc.

Humanity is calibrated for today.

Peter P says

Point being, things tend to self-regulate. Climate change, if real, can bring huge business opportunities. Just make sure you are in the right place.

The same can be said for massive war, famine, and all sorts of human hardship. I don't wish these things to be present so I can capitalize on them.

Edit: You are talking about a decline which may very well be the next human dark age. The power grids may go down. There will only be pockets of well established humanity left, working to claw back to our former glory. Luck, more than anything else, will determine winners and losers here.

Rew says

next human dark age.

Exactly. Life is adaptable, but society is fragile. This is likely to happen at some point. It's really hard for some people to imagine, and they just don't see it as a real possibility. WTF, it's only 4 oC!!!!! There are 20 oC changes outside your house every night!!!!!!

Another dumb ass thread.
Some people don't know that Clinton is not President.
Anything that goes wrong is on Republicans.
It's Trump's fault!

YesYNot says

WTF, it's only 4 oC!!!!! There are 20 oC changes outside your house every night!

Yes. It's a failure to understand the additional energy in the system to get those 2-4 degrees, and what it will generate.
It isn't going to be "Oh gosh it is really hot today", it's going to be:

- Oh wow, our crops are dying out/washed away.
- Where did this new disease come from? (species explosions/migrations/range changes, sanitation/water issues)
- Why are we plagued by an explosion of pest species? (disease/agriculture issues)
- Oh man, all those displaced people! Where are they going to go? (storms/flooding/fire)
- We cannot get X/Y/Z anymore. Trade is so disrupted!

If you could ask the Bronze Age why it ended, it would tell you climate was a huge factor: causing waves of refugees, crop failures, drought, trade disruption, wars, and little by little ... crumble she goes. In short, 2-4 degrees is a stressor humanity really doesn't need or want, regardless of "survival".

Ironman says

Look at that, it was way hotter in the past. Why are humans still alive??

Alive and flourishing ... not the same.

Edit: read above.

Rew says

Oh noes! The enemy is so unfair!

Why is the enemy attacking me?

Thanks for acknowledging that the mainstream media is our enemy. That's very intelligent of you!

Ironman says

Here's a hint, history just might repeat itself...

I think your great great great grandchildren would remember you as someone who willfully did nothing to prevent it, and maybe worse, fiddled while it all burned down.

Is this your reason for voting for Trump? Hasten the collapse and reset?

The argument above boils down to: "humanity is too stupid to figure itself out, so mother nature will."

Oh the greatness we now aspire to. My my.