Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[mbit2]

Yea..that'll work long term. /s

if it wasnt obvious: if one state takes all the water it could be the cause for the next one having a unusual drought... it could be the manmade cause.

[Rasulis]

Cat 4 atmospheric river hit California. Mostly northern California and the Sierra.

Snowstorm with 150 mph wind in the Sierra. A break on Wednesday. Another storm on Thursday through Sunday. Then another Storm on Monday. Snowpack was at 160% of normal before the storm. Here is hoping for a break from the relentless drought.

[Shadowferal]

An update on the current mass extinction; We're still screwed

[PC2]

An update on the current mass extinction; We're still screwed

---

In what year will the human population grow too large for the Earth to sustain? The answer is about 1970, according to research by the World Wildlife Fund. In 1970, the planet's 3 and a half billion people were sustainable.

We're already consuming 175% of what the Earth can regenerate.

Paul Ehrlich: Oh, humanity is not sustainable. To maintain our lifestyle (yours and mine, basically) for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths.

This is pseudo-scientific quackery.

the next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we're used to.

What we're doing is we're killing our way of life.

This part has some truth to it, not because doom-is-nigh but because civilization will always have to change in order to deal with new problems. Indefinitely preserving people's way of life in any era is not desirable or even possible in the first place.

[Shadowferal]

This is pseudo-scientific quackery.

Familiar territory for you.

[Jtbrig7390]

A bit over a week ago it was -30 here, today the high is 70F and there is storms...

"Insert everything is fine meme"

[unfilteredJW]

---




This is pseudo-scientific quackery.



This part has some truth to it, not because doom-is-nigh but because civilization will always have to change in order to deal with new problems. Indefinitely preserving people's way of life in any era is not desirable or even possible in the first place.

Imagine being PC2 and having any input on what pseudoscience is.

[Rasulis]

So how prevalent is a.c. in the US?

Data from United States Census American Housing Survey indicates that on average 92% of US homes have a.c.

Seattle metro area, which used to be the least air-conditioned metro area in the US, went up from 44% in 2019 to over 50%.

San Francisco metro area (San Francisco - Oakland - Hayward) is now at 45%. This is the least air-conditioned metro area in the US.

The City/County of San Francisco actually went down from 37% in 2017 to 34%. Indicating that a lot of contractors did not bother with central a.c. with their new buildings. Central a.c. is more prevalent on the East Bay side. Much less so in the west Pacific Ocean side. As far as I am aware, on our street, our building is the only one with a central heat pump system that also functions as air conditioning. The system did not kick in once this year.

[PC2]

Imagine being PC2 and having any input on what pseudoscience is.

It doesn't matter who is making a claim or calling it out as nonsense. What you should care about is the accuracy and the reasoning that people use when they make claims about civilization and its future.

Also you should be skeptical of overpopulation theorists and doomsday prophets who always make it so their predictions are unfalsifiable in their lifetime. They never make risky predictions over the short-term because they don't want to admit that their theory of societal evolution is bogus.

[unfilteredJW]

It doesn't matter who is making a claim or calling it out as nonsense. What you should care about is the accuracy and the reasoning that people use when they make claims about civilization and its future.

Also you should be skeptical of overpopulation theorists and doomsday prophets who always make it so their predictions are unfalsifiable in their lifetime. They never make risky predictions over the short-term because they don't want to admit that their theory of societal evolution is bogus.

I'd want to know if the well was poisoned before I drank from it.

[PC2]

I'd want to know if the well was poisoned before I drank from it.

Okay so when it comes to people like Malthus and Paul Ehrlich then you'll find that the "well has been poisoned" due to faulty epistemology. Yet tons of people drink from their well because most people have never been able to imagine a world that will improve past its current state, they can't imagine people adapting to an environmental change or solving agricultural/water problems, even though all of these things are possible.

[unfilteredJW]

Okay so when it comes to people like Malthus and Paul Ehrlich then you'll find that the "well has been poisoned" due to faulty epistemology. Yet tons of people drink from their well because most people have never been able to imagine a world that will improve past its current state, they can't imagine people adapting to an environmental change or solving agricultural/water problems, even though all of these things are possible.

Some of don’t want to leave a shitty world anf want to make changes towards that now, yes. But you keep selfishly throating the status quo.

[PC2]

Some of don’t want to leave a shitty world anf want to make changes towards that now, yes. But you keep selfishly throating the status quo.

The fact that you're talking about the "status quo" supports one of my points though, which is that you're not actually interested in solving environmental/population issues with technological innovation. It sounds like you're mainly interested in the topic because you believe it will support your authoritarian political ideology that would give you power over the status quo.

[Endus]

Okay so when it comes to people like Malthus and Paul Ehrlich then you'll find that the "well has been poisoned" due to faulty epistemology. Yet tons of people drink from their well because most people have never been able to imagine a world that will improve past its current state, they can't imagine people adapting to an environmental change or solving agricultural/water problems, even though all of these things are possible.

You've yet to provide any justification for your challenge of these results. Your entire argument is a semantically empty "nuh uh! Trust me bro!"

That's the "pseudo-scientific quackery", to use your own phrase. You want to pretend your imagination​ constitutes a counterpoint, and it does not. You even admitted you were relying on imagination.

[Shadowferal]

Ehrlich, a Stanford University professor...

[unfilteredJW]

The fact that you're talking about the "status quo" supports one of my points though, which is that you're not actually interested in solving environmental/population issues with technological innovation. It sounds like you're mainly interested in the topic because you believe it will support your authoritarian political ideology that would give you power over the status quo.

Now that's some fucking projection.

[PC2]

Ehrlich, a Stanford University professor...

Yeah he's one of the leaders of modern-day anti-humanism. His beliefs are irrational in the same way that Thanos was being irrational when he thought that there was an unsustainable amount of people in existence.

[Edge-]

Yeah he's one of the leaders of modern-day anti-humanism. His beliefs are irrational in the same way that Thanos was being irrational when he thought that there was an unsustainable amount of people in existence.

Let's try again, but without comparing this to a fuckin comicbook, eh? Especially since like, the whole Thanos thing has been thoroughly discussed with the conclusion that he simply could have doubled the amount of resources instead of killed half the universe.

Which I'll remind you is pure fiction based on the mystical power of stones that can control reality and not a remotely practical solution we should be pursuing to head off the problem before it's too late.

Toxic optimism continues to shut your brain off.

[PC2]

Let's try again, but without comparing this to a fuckin comicbook, eh? Especially since like, the whole Thanos thing has been thoroughly discussed with the conclusion that he simply could have doubled the amount of resources instead of killed half the universe.

Which I'll remind you is pure fiction based on the mystical power of stones that can control reality and not a remotely practical solution we should be pursuing to head off the problem before it's too late.

Toxic optimism continues to shut your brain off.

It's not toxic optimism when I say that the population can go up by 10% in the next century and that the population can be sustained. Science doesn't say that the world is overpopulated... I just don't understand what green people are expecting from our politicians. It seems like there is nothing that our politicians could actually do that would ever make environmentalists happy and satisfied.

[Edge-]

Science doesn't say that the world is overpopulated... I just don't understand what green people are expecting from our politicians. It seems like there is nothing that our politicians could actually do that would ever make environmentalists happy and satisfied.

"Science" doesn't say anything, and if you think it does then I think we've found out why you're so confused about the topic.

Scientists and researchers however, do say things and they've been warning about the risks of overpopulation at current growth rates for decades.

Why do you even bring up environmentalists other than just to have a whine for literally no reason?