More on Climate Change

[SGOS]

I get this thing called The Real News Network in my email several times a day it seems.  I don't know how I got on their subscriber list, and the very name "Real News Network" makes me suspicious since I mentally equate something called "Real News" as having to be "Fake News".  After all, isn't misnaming something the opposite of what it really is politically fashionable today?  I usually disregard the email without even opening it, but the title of this email caught my attention because first, it's about climate change, and second having lived in the west for 40 years of my life, working 7 summers for the Forest Service on the fire crew and knowing how fearsome and destructive Western forest fires can be, I naturally felt compelled to read it.

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Part of what I found interesting, I already understand, but this expert believes we still have time to act and that it wouldn't be as hard to take appropriate action as we have been led to believe.

Without any expert knowledge about reversing the effects of climate change, I've believed, possibly incorrectly, that it's too late to reverse the tremendous inertia of climate change.  I think we can affect it, but the inertia, now that the train is gathering speed, will take hundreds of years to even experience a slow down, and by that time our own extinction will be well on the way.  We may not wipe humanity out, but for all practical purposes, we will have ruined civilization as we know it.

This guy still has hope, as some others do.  I hope he's right.  And don't think for a minute that I don't think we should do anything about the problem.  I think we should, although for many others, the idea that it's too late to do anything will be the next big excuse to do nothing and  will be the next bumper sticker pedaled by Corporate America and the oil and gas interests.

[Hydra009]

I don't have expert knowledge on this, just as layman's understanding, so I'm not capable of giving much specifics here.  (I have a hard enough time convincing people that climate change exists and that this stuff is NOT the result of natural forces)

But from what I've read, there are some negative effects that are pretty much unavoidable.  Even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, we'll still have to contend with hotter heat waves, less arctic ice, some sea level rise, etc and it'll be quite a while until the system returns back to normal.  And that's the rosiest possible scenario.  A more realistic scenario is much worse than that.

That said, it's not all doom and gloom.  Renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient all the time, and a lot of countries have really put forth the effort to curb their carbon emissions and even in *certain* countries whose political leadership has been extremely reluctant to address this problem (*coughUScough*) the initiative has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.

Should there be a concerted effort to reduce emissions AND sequester carbon, this problem can be successfully combated.  That's why there's this groundswell of scientists and citizens urging action, because there is still hope.  If there were no hope, we wouldn't need to do anything.

[SoldierofFortune]

Stone age did not end because the stones ended.
So the petrolium age won't end because the petrolium reserves will end...

New phase will begin about generating energy at the age of we live in(post of the post modernism)
And it must begin, petrolium use is not sustainable. Reserves will end at the end.

[Baruch]

Science - humans are powerful over everything
Religion - humans are powerless over anything

The truth lies somewhere in between.  But Club of Rome and Global Climate Change ... scotch the plans for capitalist or socialist utopia.  That is why people are upset.  It is expected that all people born will die and that since all species become extinct, that humans will to.  But that goes against Adam Smith and Karl Marx, who are like gods, gods I tell you!

[Cavebear]

Stone age did not end because the stones ended.
So the petrolium age won't end because the petrolium reserves will end...

New phase will begin about generating energy at the age of we live in(post of the post modernism)
And it must begin, petrolium use is not sustainable. Reserves will end at the end.

If civilization collapses today, there would still be flint and chert easily available to humans.  There would be some small amounts of metals.  There will NOT be easily accessible oil or natural gas. 

So what, they just built wind turbines.  Really?  With what?  They transport materials?  How?  You don't build solar panels from trees.  You don't haul rust (iron ore is rust) to a blast furnace on horseback. 

You just go back 10,000 years and you don't start forward again.  You just stay there.

[ratthikorn]

I thought I would buy the same, but still find information.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If civilization collapses today, there would still be flint and chert easily available to humans.  There would be some small amounts of metals.  There will NOT be easily accessible oil or natural gas. 

So what, they just built wind turbines.  Really?  With what?  They transport materials?  How?  You don't build solar panels from trees.  You don't haul rust (iron ore is rust) to a blast furnace on horseback. 

You just go back 10,000 years and you don't start forward again.  You just stay there.

They could start at the mine and work their way up from there. We have to remember that lots of mines wouldn't just disappear. So people could extract coal, iron ore, etc. from existing mines. If they made sure the basic information would endure, perhaps printed on plastic sheets instead of paper, the nucleus of a later society might be there.

[Baruch]

They could start at the mine and work their way up from there. We have to remember that lots of mines wouldn't just disappear. So people could extract coal, iron ore, etc. from existing mines. If they made sure the basic information would endure, perhaps printed on plastic sheets instead of paper, the nucleus of a later society might be there.

Yes, every redneck is a born coal miner ;-)  Sorry, unprotected underground mines will be flooded when the power goes off, and are very dangerous, particularly to people using primitive lamps fired with animal fat.  But it was done in the Neolithic in Britain ... they used children.

Knapping flint isn't easy .. it takes training for years by a competent master to become a master yourself (so shows tell me).

[SGOS]

They could start at the mine and work their way up from there. We have to remember that lots of mines wouldn't just disappear. So people could extract coal, iron ore, etc. from existing mines. If they made sure the basic information would endure, perhaps printed on plastic sheets instead of paper, the nucleus of a later society might be there.

The mystery to me is that curious man, what I assume to be sapiens has been around for at least 200,000 years, although that's on the longer end of approximations I've seen.  What was he doing all that time?  Certainly not turning rust into iron.  It took 198,000 years for curious man to get beyond hunter gatherer.  That's 99% of his time on earth sitting around in caves grunting and farting. Talk about a lazy degenerate.  Did the evolution of man's mind just advance to a point 50 years ago that swept us into the digital age?

It would be like one person living 75 years doing nothing but soiling himself and nursing on his mothers breast, and then a few moments before he dies, he suddenly learns to communicate through speech, build industrial equipment, and comprehend thermodynamics and atomic structure.

[Baruch]

The mystery to me is that curious man, what I assume to be sapiens has been around for at least 200,000 years, although that's on the longer end of approximations I've seen.  What was he doing all that time?  Certainly not turning rust into iron.  It took 198,000 years for curious man to get beyond hunter gatherer.  That's 99% of his time on earth sitting around in caves grunting and farting. Talk about a lazy degenerate.  Did the evolution of man's mind just advance to a point 50 years ago that swept us into the digital age?

It would be like one person living 75 years doing nothing but soiling himself and nursing on his mothers breast, and then a few moments before he dies, he suddenly learns to communicate through speech, build industrial equipment, and comprehend thermodynamics and atomic structure.

Ice ages ... and when they had free time, they had sex, made babies ... high mortality rate in the clans (25 people each).

There is a theory "Breakdown Of the Bicameral Mind" ... but that author thought it happened much later than the ice ages ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login).

Also how does society develop with primitive communication?  Part of what killed the Roman Empire was the failure of the papyrus harvest.  They had to shift to the much more expensive parchment.  Notice things didn't get going until modern printing in Europe.  This printing existed already in China and Korea, but their languages are anti-printing ... they didn't have modern printing until just a few decades ago.  So alphabetic language, plus ink, plus paper (artificial papyrus), plus printing press (and Gutenburg going bankrupt with experiments on perfecting type (the lead-like letters).  And a reason to print.  It was used to fight the Catholic Church, which had a monopoly on communication.  But if the Catholics had been better prepared, we should still be living in castles.  Their totalitarianism wasn't good enough.  What is happening in computers, short of civilization failure, is good enough totalitarianism.  The Internet will probably just be Pravda before I pass on, having promoted free speech for only a few decades.

[SGOS]

Ice ages ... and when they had free time, they had sex, made babies ... high mortality rate in the clans (25 people each).

There is a theory "Breakdown Of the Bicameral Mind" ... but that author thought it happened much later than the ice ages ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login).

Also how does society develop with primitive communication?  Part of what killed the Roman Empire was the failure of the papyrus harvest.  They had to shift to the much more expensive parchment.  Notice things didn't get going until modern printing in Europe.  This printing existed already in China and Korea, but their languages are anti-printing ... they didn't have modern printing until just a few decades ago.  So alphabetic language, plus ink, plus paper (artificial papyrus), plus printing press (and Gutenburg going bankrupt with experiments on perfecting type (the lead-like letters).  And a reason to print.  It was used to fight the Catholic Church, which had a monopoly on communication.  But if the Catholics had been better prepared, we should still be living in castles.  Their totalitarianism wasn't good enough.  What is happening in computers, short of civilization failure, is good enough totalitarianism.  The Internet will probably just be Pravda before I pass on, having promoted free speech for only a few decades.

One interesting documentary I watched years ago ranked Guttenberg as the single biggest contributor to mankind's progress, above Newton and the rest of the genius celebrity elite, and I think they nailed that.  Before the printing press we were left to our individual devices.  Guttenberg probably wasn't as bright as the others, but he allowed us to communicate knowledge on a scale never before imagined with his simple invention.  And when large scale communication became the norm, the acceleration of progress was on its way turning a bunch of bronze age tribes into something quite spectacular (and scary).  Before that, written communication was done by a select few like the scribes of the Catholic Church who had the power of censorship and it's crippling effects.  And some of that power is still controlled by petty self interests that control the world.  I wish I could live another 200 years just to witness the outcome.  But I accept that can only pass on the torch to observers of the future who will get to watch when I no longer can.

[Cavebear]

The mystery to me is that curious man, what I assume to be sapiens has been around for at least 200,000 years, although that's on the longer end of approximations I've seen.  What was he doing all that time?  Certainly not turning rust into iron. 

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you, but turning rust into iron is exactly what we HAVE been doing for a few thousand years.  That's what iron oxide IS (rusted iron).  We just burn the oxygen back out of it, leaving the pure iron.

[SGOS]

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you, but turning rust into iron is exactly what we HAVE been doing for a few thousand years.  That's what iron oxide IS (rusted iron).  We just burn the oxygen back out of it, leaving the pure iron.

Yeah, you missed the point.  I was talking about accumulating knowledge without being able to communicate.  Man was around for at least 95% of his existence before he finally arrived at the iron age.  After the written word could be reproduced and distributed, mankind started to progress, and most of our knowledge we have only acquired in the last 100 years.  You might be able to make a case for the last 50 years.

I'm not sure why I talked about smelting iron.  Probably to make a point about the primitive funk man was in for most of his existence, but that post was so old, that I'm no longer sure why I thought it would help make a point.

[Baruch]

Yeah, you missed the point.  I was talking about accumulating knowledge without being able to communicate.  Man was around for at least 95% of his existence before he finally arrived at the iron age.  After the written word could be reproduced and distributed, mankind started to progress, and most of our knowledge we have only acquired in the last 100 years.  You might be able to make a case for the last 50 years.

I'm not sure why I talked about smelting iron.  Probably to make a point about the primitive funk man was in for most of his existence, but that post was so old, that I'm no longer sure why I thought it would help make a point.

Learning was by apprenticeship, not Internet.  And often a trade secret.  I saw a video, not too old, showing the last "native" iron making in Africa ... doing like it was done the very first time, anywhere, and probably the same for the earlier bronze and copper ages.  Smelting was controlled by a family guild, that wandered around making metal in trade for other goods and food.  In the Bible these are called Kenites.  In early Israel, they couldn't make their own iron tools, had to trade with the Philistines.  Here is a full movie:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Edited for a shorter film.  And notice that this is a religious ritual.

[Cavebear]

Yeah, you missed the point.  I was talking about accumulating knowledge without being able to communicate.  Man was around for at least 95% of his existence before he finally arrived at the iron age.  After the written word could be reproduced and distributed, mankind started to progress, and most of our knowledge we have only acquired in the last 100 years.  You might be able to make a case for the last 50 years.

I'm not sure why I talked about smelting iron.  Probably to make a point about the primitive funk man was in for most of his existence, but that post was so old, that I'm no longer sure why I thought it would help make a point.

OOOKAY...  Well, you WERE talking about rust into iron.

But...  I get your expanded point and agree.  Information increases every year.  Thomas Young (June 13, 1773 – May 10, 1829) was an English scientist, researcher, physician and polymath. He is sometimes considered to be "the last person to know everything": that is, he was familiar with virtually all the contemporary Western academic knowledge at that point in history.

I'm sure there were people i other cultures who knew everything locally.  But I'm sure you understand what I mean.

There came a point where information exceeded the grasp of on person's mind. 

And oh how spectacular life must have been for those few people who knew "everything" just before them.  What a feeling to know everything. 

If I could go back in time... what a place to be.

On the other hand, I'd probably be dead.  Or some slave mucking out the stables.    You can't have everything.