Climate change and consequences, split from electricity

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 27 Mar 2016, 11:00

johnhemming2 wrote:None of that says there is no future for civilisation.

Biff likes to play-up the end of the world due to AGW.....

Post by **clv101** » 27 Mar 2016, 12:10

johnhemming2 wrote:None of that says there is no future for civilisation.

Johnn that doesn't mean anything - there's no accepted definition of 'future for civilisation'.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 27 Mar 2016, 13:23

A working definition of civilisation could be:

An advanced state of complexity of a human society in which a high level of culture, technology, industry and government has been reached.

All of the above requires, over and above anything else, large amounts of energy inputs. Less energy equals less complexity equals less civilised. At what point, due to diminishing inputs, the complexity and, consequently, the civilisation drop below a given threshold such that we can then define such a civilisation as having collapsed below the point at which it could still be defined as a civilisation is the point of debate.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Mar 2016, 17:43

snow hope wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:None of that says there is no future for civilisation.
Biff likes to play-up the end of the world due to AGW.....

Have you changed your position yet, snowhope?

snowhope wrote: PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:38 pm Post subject: Manmade Global Warming? Reply with quote
The correct terminology is Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW) which means global warming where mankind is having a major impact on the warming of our climate.

I am sceptical of the AGW Theory which is based on the fact that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas (GHG). With an increase of CO2 in our atmosphere, it is theorized that this GHG will cause the global temperature of our planet to heat up. There appears to be a global warming of about 0.6c over the last century. Many scientists and organisations, bodies around the world including our own Met Office consider that a major part of that warming is down to mankind's activities.

But there are some laymen, scientists and countries who remain sceptical that this warming is due to mankind's influence. I am one of these laymen and I think the warming is more likely to be due to natural decadel and centenial swings in our climate, brought about by our local Star, the Sun which provides everything we have in our Solar System. Natural swings in our climate do occur naturally, recent examples being the Medieval warm period (1100 - 1400 approx) and the Little Ice Age (1600-1900 approx).

And as Bandidoz kindly posted in this thread, http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=163
we can see the Ice Ages which occur about every 100,000 years with about a 10,000 year inter-glacial which we are lucky enough to be enjoying currently. It should be noted that the next ice-age is due now. Shocked

The recent Horizon programmes on Global Dimming, Gulf Stream cut-off etc, were enjoyable and quite possible. As is the next Caldera explosion in Yellowstone as well as the next major asteroid impact and flu pandemic. They could start/happen tomorrow or not for 200 or 2000 years. Anything is possible! Shocked

Just my opinion folks.. Smile
_________________

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 27 Mar 2016, 19:19

Little John wrote:A working definition of civilisation could be:

An advanced state of complexity of a human society in which a high level of culture, technology, industry and government has been reached.

All of the above requires, over and above anything else, large amounts of energy inputs. Less energy equals less complexity equals less civilised. At what point, due to diminishing inputs, the complexity and, consequently, the civilisation drop below a given threshold such that we can then define such a civilisation as having collapsed below the point at which it could still be defined as a civilisation is the point of debate.

I don't think technology and energy use are the right measure.
A civilized society has sufficient social order so that individuals are free from "might makes right dynamics" and can live in peace and enjoy the fruits of their labor without fear of the government or outlaws confiscating or stealing them. Each individual has rights and responsibilities (taxes - military service etc.) but can plan ahead with reasonable certainty so that investing for ones future or declining years is both possible and wise.
a high level of technology and built out infrastructure without this civil order would not be a civilization.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 27 Mar 2016, 19:26

"Civilised" does not necessarily mean fair or even nice. That is a modern, liberal interpretation that has been arbitrarily placed on it. I am not saying these things are not desirable. It's just that they are a particular function of modern industrial society. By insisting that they be included in all definitions of "civilisation" you are effectively and arbitrarily cutting out all complex human societies pre-1750 form any definition of "civilisation. Which is basically daft.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 27 Mar 2016, 20:04

Whichever way you look at it civilisation would persist at least in part of the world if average temparatures went up by 5 C and all the ice melted.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Mar 2016, 20:46

johnhemming2 wrote:Whichever way you look at it civilisation would persist at least in part of the world if average temparatures went up by 5 C and all the ice melted.

You have a pretty strange way of looking at civilisation. Even the World Bank report on the dire consequences of global warming only studied what might happen at 4°. They considered more than that being not worth considering.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 27 Mar 2016, 20:59

Many billions of people can die, but civilisation still persist. It is simply that your statement is not true.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 27 Mar 2016, 21:12

Little John wrote:"Civilised" does not necessarily mean fair or even nice. That is a modern, liberal interpretation that has been arbitrarily placed on it. I am not saying these things are not desirable. It's just that they are a particular function of modern industrial society. By insisting that they be included in all definitions of "civilisation" you are effectively and arbitrarily cutting out all complex human societies pre-1750 form any definition of "civilisation. Which is basically daft.

I did not say things were fair just that they were predictable. The serfs of medieval Europe had a pretty tough lot but the Knights and lords above them protected them from invaders and kept the civil law between them. The Pharaohs of Egypt surveyed the land to settle boundary disputes and stored grain in priest guarded granaries sufficient to sustain them through seven years of drought.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Mar 2016, 21:57

johnhemming2 wrote: It is simply that your statement is not true.

No, it is simply that we do not agree of the meaning of 'civilisation'.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 28 Mar 2016, 05:43

johnhemming2 wrote:Whichever way you look at it civilisation would persist at least in part of the world if average temparatures went up by 5 C and all the ice melted.

If a major proportion of the world;s population died off I doubt that civilisation as we know it would continue for very long. The whole basis of our manufacturing requires so much technical input which is sourced from so many different countries and requires so much technology to manufacture it, including the generation of power, that it would be difficult for a civilisation to survive - as we know it.

Just take clothing for instance. How many people could knit a jumper now even if they were given ready spun wool? How many people could manufacture linen even if they had the plants or even the seed to grow it? How many people could make cotton thread from a cotton bush? How many people know how to tan a deer hide using the deer's brain? How many people know how to kill a deer?

Even more basic. How many people could provide their own clean water supply if the power went off or even if it went off intermittently? No water out of a tap!! Complain to the government. How do you do that if the electricity is off most of the time?

If the electricity went off or even if the monetary system broke down how would you get your food? The supermarkets would empty in seven days or probably less. Most people wouldn't know how to grow their own food and even if they did it takes at least four weeks for baby salad to grow and there isn't much nutrition in that.

There might still be life on the earth but civilisation as we know it? I doubt that very much.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 28 Mar 2016, 07:28

kenneal - lagger wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:Whichever way you look at it civilisation would persist at least in part of the world if average temparatures went up by 5 C and all the ice melted.
If a major proportion of the world;s population died off I doubt that civilisation as we know it would continue for very long. The whole basis of our manufacturing requires so much technical input which is sourced from so many different countries and requires so much technology to manufacture it, including the generation of power, that it would be difficult for a civilisation to survive - as we know it.

Just take clothing for instance. How many people could knit a jumper now even if they were given ready spun wool? How many people could manufacture linen even if they had the plants or even the seed to grow it? How many people could make cotton thread from a cotton bush? How many people know how to tan a deer hide using the deer's brain? How many people know how to kill a deer?

Even more basic. How many people could provide their own clean water supply if the power went off or even if it went off intermittently? No water out of a tap!! Complain to the government. How do you do that if the electricity is off most of the time?

If the electricity went off or even if the monetary system broke down how would you get your food? The supermarkets would empty in seven days or probably less. Most people wouldn't know how to grow their own food and even if they did it takes at least four weeks for baby salad to grow and there isn't much nutrition in that.

There might still be life on the earth but civilisation as we know it? I doubt that very much.

Well yes things would be as difficult as you say but consider that if a major share of the worlds people died off there would be a major share of our manufacturing and food supply chain that is no longer needed. There would be vacant houses and factories everywhere and salvaging from them would become a way of life. Renewable power sources that supply only ten percent of demand today would supply one hundred percent not because we built more but because the demand literally died.
Also a world with say a half billion people in it will have plenty of individuals that know how to build a textile factory and farmers that know how to grow cotton. you can't assume that the technophobes will die off leaving the uneducated masses behind.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 28 Mar 2016, 08:12

biffvernon wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote: It is simply that your statement is not true.
No, it is simply that we do not agree of the meaning of 'civilisation'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

Is a definition of civilization that is generally accepted in English. What language do you speak?

What is the definition in your language?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Mar 2016, 08:25

johnhemming2 wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote: It is simply that your statement is not true.
No, it is simply that we do not agree of the meaning of 'civilisation'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

Is a definition of civilization that is generally accepted in English. What language do you speak?

What is the definition in your language?

Like I said, we don't agree on the meaning of civilisation if your is:

A civilization (US) or civilisation (UK) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite

Mine is not necessarily urban.
Society need not (should not) be stratified.
A perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite is exactly where our potential path to civilisation went wrong.

I'm OK with symbolic communication.