- Aug 14, 2006
- Reaction score
- Jacksonville, FL
(resets doomsday clock that was meant to destroy us all in 2013)That's just theoretical though. We have maybe 10 "good" years left at this rate, and we're clearly not getting to that utopia with the current incentives, so it's all a moot point
It's never been tried with gigantic populations where we already have advanced technology, it's only been applied in the days of the clans. We have no idea how it'll work until it happens, and see how the populace reacts to it. When the planets resources are depleted we'll find out.I don't understand this....
if you have a peaceful community, then that sense of community is probably built on some form of sharing, which would form a market, and they'd need rules to keep that system from breaking down, or to "govern" it, so to speak. If you have no rules, you have no market, you have no community, you have no incentive to be peaceful. "Peace" doesn't just happen because people agree to be nice to eachother.
At this time of year?
At this time of day?
In this part of the country?
Localized entirely within your kitchen!?
Methane has increased about 700 parts per billion since 1950. That's actually a very tiny absolute amount. The expected greenhouse effect from that is not insignificant, but pretty small in comparison to other gases which have had so much more increase in concentration.(resets doomsday clock that was meant to destroy us all in 2013)
JUST 10 MORE YEARS GUYS!!
"The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.
... Wheat yields increased 100 to 300% around the world since the 1960s, while a study of 30 models found that yields would decline by 6% for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature."
I think what people forget is a system will always settle to the lowest energy state possible. The amount of methane in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing but we haven't seen as large an increase in temperature as expected. Methane is volatile and behaves differently in different parts of the atmosphere. It has chosen the state that has the lowest energy footprint. There is a high potential for warming physically but observations just don't match expectations.
The models suck.
Methanes in their models are predicted to have 13x the warming vs C02 from methane, it has not shown up, why? Please stop asking me questions, I didn't write the models, I didn't write the papers based upon modelling (not real world data), I didn't say it was going to happen. Your questions should be directed at people who made these predictions. This is the whole basis for the 'Cow farts - stop eating meat' fallacy. We paid these people billions of dollars, hold them accountable.Methane has increased about 700 parts per billion since 1950. That's actually a very tiny absolute amount. The expected greenhouse effect from that is not insignificant, but pretty small in comparison to other gases which have had so much more increase in concentration.
Yes, methane is very volatile and spontaneously combusts or is oxidised all on it's own after about 12 years. It will do whatever is easiest for it not the behaviour that will result in the most warming. Methane will break down ASAP, in fact the more energy methane absorbs it makes it break down even faster into less warming compounds.Could you be more specific about how is has "chosen" the lowest energy footprint?
All of the models, Sea level, ocean warming, temperature, agriculture. They are consistently wrong and the behaviour is to double down on them, reset the clock and say 'in x years' according to the same models, that thing will now change x by year x. They should be honest and say 'We got it wrong' or 'we don't know' because if they were honest they would.Which models are you criticizing? Are you looking at the rough model for how one vaguely defined aspect of agriculture would be affected by climate change and using that as evidence for your disbelief in the models for climate change itself? Because that's the way your message comes off.