Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
I thought he was saying that there were a lot of things humans could do to adapt to a changing environment.
Correct.
There are obviously costs to the adaption and real risks that the rate of change accelerates to such that humanity (and earth) will struggle to keep up.
But that’s very different from outright predicting societal collapse or extinction of the human species.
OK .... so we have some people making assertions of human adaptability without any details whatsoever.
The entire 300k year of human existence up to the year 1900 were spent within the following parameters
The deepest part of an ice age at 7 Mt. Everest Equivalents of CO2
The warm interglacial at 12.5 Mt Everest Equivalents of CO2
All of the precedent of the human adaptability occurred within those boundaries.
You simply brush it off that humans can adapt to anything .... including an atmosphere that is at 30 Mt Equivalents of CO2 (and increasing by 0.2 Mt Everest Equivalents each year)
You are completely ignorant of the meaning of that.
The version of the planet determines which organisms are best suited to survival of the fittest. Humans thrived in a different version of the planet. Not the version we are in the process of creating. It's really no different than a bacterial colony in a petri dish which maximizes its population and consumes all of the food it can until it perishes in the toxic byproducts of its own metabolism.
The overturning ocean circulation (AMOC) last stopped 13,000 years ago when humans were still hunter gatherers. It has been overturning throughout the development of human civilization. It's likely to stop overturning in the next 30 years.
WE ARE MAKING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VERSION OF EARTH THAN WE HAVE ANY ACQUAINTANCE WITH
I wonder what people are thinking about the actions of the super wealthy ???
Do they see Bezos and Musk investing in space programs and get the picture that might be looking for a place to hide for a decade while life on Earth melts down ?
Do they see Zuckerberg's $300 survival bunker in Hawaii and wonder why ?
Do they see Bill Gates has purchased several hundred thousand acres of farmland in the N US and is the largest private shareholder in some Canadian rail stocks ? Do people not understand that he's trying to secure a reliable source of food ?
Those dudes have access to a lot more inside information than we do. They have their own employees who are basically the equivalent of a national intelligence agency. Smart billionaires surround themselves with people who have access to inside information.
Everyone understands that we need oxygen to breathe and that the air at the surface is denser that at altitude. You can't hang out all day at the top of Mt. Everest without supplemental oxygen.
So we have this small layer we can survive in on this planet spinning planet zooming around it's orbit. Miraculously for us ..... the Earth's gravity holds the atmosphere close and it doesn't fly off as it zooms around ... LOL !!!!
The analogy is that we live in an open spaceship or submarine and the wall is the layer between the Earth's breathable atmosphere and outer space.
Now ....... imagine you were the designer of this spaceship and you wanted the spaceship to be suitable for humans. You would have designed it to be the temperature that was ideal for human evolution. And how would you achieve the specified temperature ?
With the ONLY tool that keeps heat in the atmosphere .... a sprinkle of greenhouse gases.
The exact amount of sprinkle is important, because the little sprinkle that was present in the year 1900 was enough to raise Earth's average temp by 30C compared to a world without that little sprinkle.
Now we've added a double sprinkle ...... we've completely overridden the specifications of the original design.
Maybe a good title is Spaceship Earth.
Hey Lucifer .... I have a question for you. How far in school did you get with science classes ? Chemistry, biology, physics ? Do you understand what a feedback loops is ? A tipping point ?
I have a hunch that I might actually be teaching you guys something.
I wonder if people understand how dangerous CO2 is to our health.
CARBON DIOXIDE IS A HUMAN WASTE PRODUCT
It isn't healthy for any creature to dwell in increasing amounts of it's own waste. It's like shitting on the floor and leaving it there.
Do you have any idea what level of CO2 is safe to breath? Levels of CO2 concentration commonly observed indoors? You're conflating bad for ecosystem stability and safe to breath.
CO2 is a byproduct of human breathing. It's not inherently dangerous to human health. "Shitting" and leaving it there is dangerous to human health for all kinds of reasons not worth going into.
Modern examples of "adapation" are everywhere around us. Higher profile projects like Venice and Amsterdam are obvious. Increased anti-flood budgets of NYC are less obvious. The "sponge" water soaking designs of some newly developed Chinese cities are less well known but arguably even more impressive than Venice/Amsterdam.
You just aren't looking because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I'm btw on record saying the way humanity is dealing with climate change/global warming is utterly ******ed. Even a miniscule chance that this runs out of control can justify tremendous costs to lower the risk. But the current narrative out there is ******ed and utterly inconsistent with the lived experiences of 90+% of the human population, even those purportedly most impacted.
Modern examples of "adapation" are everywhere around us. Higher profile projects like Venice and Amsterdam are obvious. Increased anti-flood budgets of NYC are less obvious. The "sponge" water soaking designs of some newly developed Chinese cities are less well known but arguably even more impressive than Venice/Amsterdam.You just aren't looking because it doesn't fit your narr
Btw *with +1.4 celsius baked in already*, purportedly a negative...
So for now +1.4 celsius is fully compatible with *growing food production* (and more calories growth than population growth).
But the current narrative out there is ******ed and utterly inconsistent with the lived experiences of 90+% of the human population, even those purportedly most impacted.
The lived experience of someone alive today is capped out at ~ 100 years
Our species history is no more than 300k years
GHG levels are higher than they have been in over 10 million years. That's obviously inconsistent with the lived experience of people.
Extinction is, by definition, inconsistent with lived experiences.
Do you have any idea what level of CO2 is safe to breath? Levels of CO2 concentration commonly observed indoors? You're conflating bad for ecosystem stability and safe to breath.
CO2 is a byproduct of human breathing. It's not inherently dangerous to human health. "Shitting" and leaving it there is dangerous to human health for all kinds of reasons not worth going into.
OSHA sets the limit in which humans can safely work at 0.5% CO2. I'm aware that many work environments are in the 0.1% range.
CO2 and **** are both human waste products. They come out of us.
Edit: CO2 is generally fatal at an 8% atmospheric concentration.
I wonder if people understand how dangerous CO2 is to our health.
CARBON DIOXIDE IS A HUMAN WASTE PRODUCT
It isn't healthy for any creature to dwell in increasing amounts of it's own waste. It's like shitting on the floor and leaving it there.
This is a poor argument.
Elevated levels of oxygen in the atmosphere would be harmful to humans, even though oxygen is essential to mammalian respiration, and not a "waste product." (Also, carbon dioxide isn't a specifically "human waste product." All mammalian respiration produces carbon dioxide.)
OSHA sets the limit in which humans can safely work at 0.5% CO2. I'm aware that many work environments are in the 0.1% range.
And how do these levels compare to CO2 observed, and projected to be, in the atmosphere?
Btw *with +1.4 celsius baked in already*, purportedly a negative...
So for now +1.4 celsius is fully compatible with *growing food production* (and more calories growth than population growth).Lucifer .... what happens to food production when the AMOC stops ?
CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 0.028% to 0.043%. Well below OSHA's threshold.
Studies have demonstrated cognitive impairment at levels much less than OSHA's threshold. At levels as low as 0.1%
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...
Is it not clear ..... CO2 is something we're meant to breathe out. The more that is in the atmosphere, the more we breathe in.
Btw *with +1.4 celsius baked in already*, purportedly a negative...
So for now +1.4 celsius is fully compatible with *growing food production* (and more calories growth than population growth).You show charts which demonstrate an increase in crop production from the years 2000 - 2024 and use them to support a hypothesis that +1.4C is fully compatible with growing food production.
+1.4C was reached at the end of that period. Not between 2000 and 2024.
The proof of how 1.4C and higher temps will impact food production will be demonstrated in the future, not the past.
CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 0.028% to 0.043%. Well below OSHA's threshold. Studies have demonstrated cognitive impairment at levels much less than OSHA's threshold. At levels as low as 0.1%https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...Is it not clear ..... CO2 is something we're meant to breathe out. The more that is in the atmosphere, the more we
FYI our bodies, breathing in particular, stop functioning if CO2 level in the blood is too low and overscrubbed air is one of the known cases.
There is a **** ton of medical data on how co2 levels interact with human bodies, with hundreds of millions of human hours logged between anesthesia tables, space missions, submarine missions, and all kinds of other settings with strictly controlled airflows (certain types of factories and medical facilities for examples)
The evidence is absolutely unequivocal: humans see no ill effects with co2 concentration levels that’s ~10x (and probably more) of what is typical in the asmosphete
The evidence is absolutely unequivocal: humans see no ill effects with co2 concentration levels that’s ~10x (and probably more) of what is typical in the asmosphete
The peer reviewed study that I linked above says otherwise. It shows cognitive impairment at as little as 2-3x regular atmospheric CO2 levels.
What scientific evidence can you share in rebuttal to that study ?
The peer reviewed study that I linked above says otherwise. It shows cognitive impairment at as little as 2-3x regular atmospheric CO2 levels.
What scientific evidence can you share in rebuttal to that study ?
The actual content of the paper says the evidence is thin and poor ventilation cannot be ruled out. As far as studies of studies go, this one also does a pretty poor job accounting for selection bias. (Papers showing no effect tend to not get published)
Also just fundamentally the paper indicates very high heterogeneity everywhere indicating the results are unreliable and should be taken with large doses of salt. The paper itself repeatedly acknowledge this without addressing it. In fact, despite what the paper leads and ends with, the meat of the paper simply does not support the conclusions and recommendations.
The actual content of the paper says the evidence is thin and poor ventilation cannot be ruled out. As far as studies of studies go, this one also does a pretty poor job accounting for selection bias. (Papers showing no effect tend to not get published)Also just fundamentally the paper indicates very high heterogeneity everywhere indicating the results are unreliable and should
Are you arguing with a "scientist"? Stay in your lane.
The linked study is a meta-analysis of 15 separate studies.
It completely debunks your claim of "absolutely unequivocal"
I actually had a longer response typed out then I realized I am no longer a TA getting paid for this.
So here is my response.
Your comment shows you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the paper.
You didn't answer to what formation/studies you did, maybe I've missed it.
The way you talk about carbon dioxide is not a good look for you.
