400 ppm

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23197
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Mo » 08 Jul 2017, 22:07

Jennifer wrote:WIth horses, the speed differential makes it unsafe for the person on the horse: IOW, if you take a horse on a regular car-road, you are in extra danger, but people in cars generally are not.
Yes they are. Every see what happens to a car when it hits a deer? Horses are a lot bigger. Anything that increases collision probability increases risk for everyone.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 08 Jul 2017, 22:08

anytime significant technology changes happen, people don't simply use that technology to have "the same status quo as before, only far easier to achieve"; the status quo itself changes to become something that would've been impossible before
Further thought: Perhaps a better way to put it is, "maintaining the old status quo becomes impossible, for anyone wishing to take part in the new standard for everyday life." If, for example, you want to live an ordinary everyday modern American lifestyle, only using a horse rather than car for transportation? It's pretty much impossible. Want housing? It's fairly easy to buy or rent a place that also offers options to keep at least one automobile parked, but finding housing that also offers horse-stable opportunities is far harder-- a "horse property" is a specialized luxury. Want to find a job where you take your own personal transportation vehicle to work (especially in places where mass transit isn't available)? Almost all such jobs offer either free on-site parking for cars, a paid parking garage or, if you're unlucky, a situation where you have to find a place to park on the street; good luck finding any sort of job where you ride your horse to work and keep it stabled during your workday. The various stores I now patronize or have patronized throughout my life in various states up and down the east coast all offer car-parking options; I've never been to one offering the option to hitch a horse, with or without a buggy behind it. IOW, it's not illegal to own a horse and buggy, but it's effectively impossible for mainstream Americans (as opposed to, say, the Amish) to actually use a horse and buggy in lieu of a car. And I expect there will come a time where the same holds true for people who want to drive their own cars rather than have a robot car -- even if it's not illegal, it'll be effectively impossible to do, if you want to swim in the American mainstream.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12998
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Highway » 08 Jul 2017, 22:37

There's a HUGE point that you're missing, tho. A modern motor vehicle driven by a person in a responsible and safe manner is going to operate *the same* as an AV driven by a computer in a responsible manner. The exact same. I've said this before: Driving safely is a solved problem. We as humans know how to do it. AVs are being designed to drive that way all the time. The issue is that most people don't do that all the time. Some never. But with safe driving, there wouldn't be that safety gap that you see with horses.

And even if there is some change in the way that the majority of vehicles operate, due to AVs becoming virtually all of the vehicles on the road, then the humans could adopt that change, and continue to pilot the non-AV cars in the same manner as the AVs.

There is one specific change I can think of that would make it more difficult for human piloted vehicles to "blend in" with AV traffic. If there was Vehicle-to-Vehicle or Vehicle-to-Facility communication of things like destination and intent, and dynamic traffic control, then there would be greater difficulty. But if the vehicles can communicate that to the human driver (and if they had that kind of system, they'd come up with a way to do it, likely), then it can also be handled.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23197
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Mo » 08 Jul 2017, 22:53

And to add on to what Highway says, having a significant proportion, let alone majority, of vehicles will make the lapses in responsible driving less likely to end up in tragedy. The accidents are where a typically conscientious driver who has a lapse in attention and then has a collision because some idiot acts in an unexpected manner would be significantly reduced because so many more cars will act in a predictable manner, making those sorts of interactions less common. Also, that doesn't even get to the part of the future where AVs act as highway narcs for people acting like lunatics because they take advantage of the fact that AVs will avoid collisions as job #1.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Sandy » 08 Jul 2017, 23:03

Warning here since this seems to be active: I'm going to disable the boards in about 10 minutes. Wrap up your posts now :)
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 09 Jul 2017, 16:53

Related article in today's LA Times, titled "Cars are full of tech that gets outdated fast — so people are leasing, not buying":
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... ft09a-5gp1

Increases in leasing rates don’t signify the death of car ownership — yet. In the next few decades though, as self-driving cars take over the streets, Brauer says the days of buying a car might come to an end.

“Autonomous cars don’t get into accidents; people do,” [Kelley Blue Book publisher] Brauer said. “Accidents are expensive for cities, so it’s very possible that in the next 15 years, they could charge fees for human-controlled cars to drive in certain areas.”
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17936
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: 400 ppm

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 10 Jul 2017, 01:37

I don't believe ideas can be incredulous. That's all. Carry on.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14702
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Aresen » 10 Jul 2017, 14:39

Jennifer wrote:
09 Jul 2017, 16:53
Related article in today's LA Times, titled "Cars are full of tech that gets outdated fast — so people are leasing, not buying":
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... ft09a-5gp1

Increases in leasing rates don’t signify the death of car ownership — yet. In the next few decades though, as self-driving cars take over the streets, Brauer says the days of buying a car might come to an end.

“Autonomous cars don’t get into accidents; people do,” [Kelley Blue Book publisher] Brauer said. “Accidents are expensive for cities, so it’s very possible that in the next 15 years, they could charge fees for human-controlled cars to drive in certain areas.”
I fully expect that personal driving will be prohibited within this century, quite possibly by 2050. All vehicles will be autonomous and someone who wants to drive themself will need a special permit.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16156
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: 400 ppm

Post by lunchstealer » 10 Jul 2017, 14:55

Aresen wrote:
10 Jul 2017, 14:39
Jennifer wrote:
09 Jul 2017, 16:53
Related article in today's LA Times, titled "Cars are full of tech that gets outdated fast — so people are leasing, not buying":
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... ft09a-5gp1

Increases in leasing rates don’t signify the death of car ownership — yet. In the next few decades though, as self-driving cars take over the streets, Brauer says the days of buying a car might come to an end.

“Autonomous cars don’t get into accidents; people do,” [Kelley Blue Book publisher] Brauer said. “Accidents are expensive for cities, so it’s very possible that in the next 15 years, they could charge fees for human-controlled cars to drive in certain areas.”
I fully expect that personal driving will be prohibited within this century, quite possibly by 2050. All vehicles will be autonomous and someone who wants to drive themself will need a special permit.
That'll be about the time I'm likely to become a medically shitty driver, so I'm down.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12998
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Highway » 10 Jul 2017, 15:09

lunchstealer wrote:
10 Jul 2017, 14:55
Aresen wrote:
10 Jul 2017, 14:39
Jennifer wrote:
09 Jul 2017, 16:53
Related article in today's LA Times, titled "Cars are full of tech that gets outdated fast — so people are leasing, not buying":
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... ft09a-5gp1

Increases in leasing rates don’t signify the death of car ownership — yet. In the next few decades though, as self-driving cars take over the streets, Brauer says the days of buying a car might come to an end.

“Autonomous cars don’t get into accidents; people do,” [Kelley Blue Book publisher] Brauer said. “Accidents are expensive for cities, so it’s very possible that in the next 15 years, they could charge fees for human-controlled cars to drive in certain areas.”
I fully expect that personal driving will be prohibited within this century, quite possibly by 2050. All vehicles will be autonomous and someone who wants to drive themself will need a special permit.
That'll be about the time I'm likely to become a medically shitty driver, so I'm down.
I'm really not convinced of this. To get there, we will really need Level 5 Automation, which is quite a significant step beyond Level 4. Level 4 is "Vehicles operate in the dynamic driving task even if a human does not respond to a request to intervene." But the key factor is that is within the normal Operational Dynamic Domain of the system. It specifically does not include all situations that could arise. So basically, on the roads - low speed and high speed, going into normal parking lots, driveways, garages, probably dirt and gravel roads. But that's not everything everyone does in a car, even in non-special instances.

That's what Level 5 is, and it's a big step that I think must be covered before it could be said "No, you *cannot* have a car with a steering wheel" which is what I think the condition would be for saying "You can't drive it yourself." I do think that long before that, there will *be* cars without steering wheels, but being able to have one without a steering wheel is a different thing from you cannot have one with a steering wheel.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3747
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Painboy » 24 Aug 2017, 22:23


User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14702
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Aresen » 24 Aug 2017, 22:31

Painboy wrote:
24 Aug 2017, 22:23
What to make of this?
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-pair-global-natural.html
They suggest the warming we are now experiencing is mostly naturally occurring and that it will likely abate just as it has done in the past.
OK. Give me some dates and numbers. On a long enough time scale, nothing lasts forever, but for science, I want something that I can check the results against.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Sandy » 25 Aug 2017, 14:36

They've got a lot of established science to explain away, as well as a plausible mechanism for their hypothesis.

Ironically, this is the old "it's just computer simulations" argument turned on its head.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23197
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Mo » 25 Aug 2017, 22:55

Wasn't the Medieval Warm Period a regional warming rather than a global phenomenon?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16156
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: 400 ppm

Post by lunchstealer » 28 Aug 2017, 20:59

Mo wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:55
Wasn't the Medieval Warm Period a regional warming rather than a global phenomenon?
This was my understanding.

The thing is it's not as if there's no chance that it's natural or mostly natural, just that at this point there's not MUCH chance and everyone should be comfortable at least saying, "It probably is, but we should keep checking anyway, because there are still unexplored avenues."
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18021
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: 400 ppm

Post by dbcooper » 30 Nov 2017, 17:36

Looks like Germany can't reduce it's CO2 emissions due to reliance on coal. Guess who has championed the coal industry her entire political career, and eliminated their nuclear power industry on a whim? Merkel.

Image

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... e142ad68e1
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
JD
Posts: 10438
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: 400 ppm

Post by JD » 15 Aug 2018, 13:58

One of the authors of "Hothouse Earth" has basically stated that we need to go full-on command economy in order to prevent global warming:
[The] obvious thing we have to do is to get greenhouse gas emissions down as fast as we can. That means that has to be the primary target of policy and economics. You have got to get away from the so-called neoliberal economics.
...
We need to immediately stop deforestation of the Amazon rainforest and other tropical forests, and start reforesting them. That means a U-turn in terms of how we operate the world’s economic systems. The only way you’re going to change that is if you actually change value systems, perhaps even changing the way political systems operate and so on. The social scientists in our group have said this really is a fundamental change in human societies we need to have if we’re going to solve this problem.
...
It’s not that the solutions aren’t there. It’s that we don’t have the economic and policy setting right to really ramp those up. [The main constraints on action are] our value systems, politics, and legal systems. [Taking climate change seriously also means taking] a completely different view of economics, going away from viewing the natural world as resources to viewing it as an essential piece of our life support system that needs to be maintained and enhanced.
...
[Asked what he thought the balance should be between those sorts of market-tweaking measures and regulations,] Naively from the outside as a non-expert, I would say regulation every time: throw people in jail, fine them, do whatever you need to do. But make sure you get the biophysical outcome. From what I’ve seen, market mechanisms don’t always deliver that.
Command economy aside, he is basically calling for a religious movement, because the overriding value and goal of every action must be "preserve the planet".
"Millennials are lazy. They'd rather have avocado toast than cave in a man's skull with a tire iron!" -FFF

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 15 Aug 2018, 14:12

He is right about one thing -- absent, say, some utterly amazing invention that cheaply and efficiently provides scads of clean energy (such as, some amazing solar panel that can power a car as well as gasoline AND costs less money than gas), "market mechanisms" alone won't reduce carbon emissions. It's another tragedy-of-the-commons problem.

I still think our chances of figuring out some non-coercive (or at least minimally coercive) solution to this problem would be MUCH easier if the Republicans would drop their partisan bias a la "Manmade climate change is a liberal lie." Hard to figure out how to solve a problem when the people in power deny it even exists.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22734
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: 400 ppm

Post by JasonL » 15 Aug 2018, 14:34

Double super secret truth - people don't want to do anything about it unless costs are invisible to them. Not the great majority of the the left wing even. Try to propose a tax to say double the price of carbon based fuels. Q1: Do our people have to pay it? A: Yes that's how it works. Q2: do we get a new handout? A: probably not because we aren't seeking to create new entitlements or increase taxes overall - we'd seek a tax neutral way to redistribute the revenue. Q3: No? We're out! A3: I thought this was about civilization but it sort of seems like it's about you wanting a new check ...

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3747
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Painboy » 15 Aug 2018, 14:47

JasonL wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 14:34
Double super secret truth - people don't want to do anything about it unless costs are invisible to them. Not the great majority of the the left wing even. Try to propose a tax to say double the price of carbon based fuels. Q1: Do our people have to pay it? A: Yes that's how it works. Q2: do we get a new handout? A: probably not because we aren't seeking to create new entitlements or increase taxes overall - we'd seek a tax neutral way to redistribute the revenue. Q3: No? We're out! A3: I thought this was about civilization but it sort of seems like it's about you wanting a new check ...
It's attitudes like that that makes me wonder how much those who push it really believe all the various climate predictions of doom. I mean if I was convinced that was a reality I'd be a lot more proactive doing something about it regardless of what others were doing. Yet there seems to be a large number of people who like talking and haranguing others about it but doing little, or even ignoring practical solutions, that might prevent it.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 15 Aug 2018, 14:54

Painboy wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 14:47
JasonL wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 14:34
Double super secret truth - people don't want to do anything about it unless costs are invisible to them. Not the great majority of the the left wing even. Try to propose a tax to say double the price of carbon based fuels. Q1: Do our people have to pay it? A: Yes that's how it works. Q2: do we get a new handout? A: probably not because we aren't seeking to create new entitlements or increase taxes overall - we'd seek a tax neutral way to redistribute the revenue. Q3: No? We're out! A3: I thought this was about civilization but it sort of seems like it's about you wanting a new check ...
It's attitudes like that that makes me wonder how much those who push it really believe all the various climate predictions of doom. I mean if I was convinced that was a reality I'd be a lot more proactive doing something about it regardless of what others were doing. Yet there seems to be a large number of people who like talking and haranguing others about it but doing little, or even ignoring practical solutions, that might prevent it.
It's not unlike the "Why did hunter-gatherers switch to farming, if early farm life was far worse than hunter-gatherer life" discussion on the other thread -- we've painted ourselves into a corner here. When the fossil fuel revolution started, we used those amazing abundant energy supplies to change our civilization and start living lifestyles which would've been impossible before. Now that the downsides of that lifestyle have become evident -- well, what can we do? We have a situation where we're basically dependent on these energy supplies; we know the long-term downsides of using them, yet taking steps to fix those long-term problems will cause massive harm and disruption in the short term.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22734
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: 400 ppm

Post by JasonL » 15 Aug 2018, 15:03

Question - should we have "fixed" the farming problem even if we agree that early people were worse off food and nutrition wise all in (I don't accept this but for the sake of argument lets assume). That is, the cost to civilization to abandoning these things is enormous in the absence of an energy/food substitute that's actually real and not wishful thinking. It isn't at all clear what the perfect information rational decision should be - it was almost certainly to keep farming and it may well be to use energy - seeking to mitigate negative outcomes without changing the fundamental commitment to energy use/predictable geolocated food stuffs.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 15 Aug 2018, 15:11

JasonL wrote:
15 Aug 2018, 15:03
Question - should we have "fixed" the farming problem even if we agree that early people were worse off food and nutrition wise all in (I don't accept this but for the sake of argument lets assume).
The problem is that "fixing" the farming problem would have required massive depopulation back to hunter-gatherer levels, similar to how -- with currently available knowledge and technology -- "fixing" the global warming problem would require massive depopulation and/or significant decreases in our standards of living. So we're stuck: we can make life better for our descendants down the road, but only by making life worse for us now. Or, we continue doing what we're doing now and we'll be okay, but our descendants end up far worse off as a result.

Sometimes -- often, I suspect -- problems do not have easy solutions, which is precisely what makes them "problems" rather than "minor annoyances which can be fairly easily overcome."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 18 Sep 2018, 23:16

Rising sea levels and stronger, more frequent hurricanes are not the worst parts (from a human-livability perspective) of what climate change is doing to the planet.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: 400 ppm

Post by Jennifer » 29 Sep 2018, 03:57

The Trump administration says the planet is fucked anyway, so we may as well make it worse:
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket. [...] Trump has vowed to exit the Paris accord and called climate change a hoax. In the past two months, the White House has pushed to dismantle nearly half a dozen major rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, deregulatory moves intended to save companies hundreds of millions of dollars.

If enacted, the administration’s proposals would give new life to aging coal plants; allow oil and gas operations to release more methane into the atmosphere; and prevent new curbs on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air-conditioning units. The vehicle rule alone would put 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions, according to the government’s own analysis....
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests