You're wrong plain and simple. Even according to the conservative scientific organizations that are in charge of communicating what's happening and therefore cannot simply state the full reality of the situation we're seeing a decline in food productivity due to climate change.

Crops fail when the climate in the areas in which they grow changes.

Do you want to be buried in sources and data? I don't have the time right now (getting ready for a 22+ hour drive) but I will come back and bury you.



Gornall J, Betts R, Burke E, et al. Implications of climate change for
agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Philos Trans R Soc
Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365(1554):2973–2989.


 Lobell DB, Gourdji SM. The influence of climate change on global crop
productivity. Plant Physiol. 2012;160(4):1686–1697.


 Ziska LH, Blumenthal DM, Runion GB, Hunt ER, Diaz-Soltero H. Invasive
species and climate change: An agronomic perspective. Clim Change.
2011;105:13–42.


Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Leakey AD, Morgan PB. Global food insecurity.
treatment of major food crops with elevated carbon dioxide or ozone
under large-scale fully open-air conditions suggests recent models may
have overestimated future yields. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.
2005;360(1463):2011–2020.


United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Climate change and
agriculture in the United States: Effects and adaptation. 2013;USDA
Technical Bulletin 1935:1–186.


 Handmer J, Honda Y, Kundzewicz ZW, et al. Changes in impacts of climate
extremes: Human systems and ecosystems. In: Managing the risks of
extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A
special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change (IPCC). 2012:
231–290.


 Teixeira EI, Fischer G, van Velthuizen H, Walter C, Ewert F. Global hotspots
of heat stress on agricultural crops due to climate change. Agric For
Meteorol. 2013;170(15):206–215.


 Li YP, Ye W, Wang M, Yan XD. Climate change and drought: A risk
assessment of crop yield impacts. Clim Res. 2009;39:31–46.


 United Nations. Cyclone Sidr United Nations rapid initial assessment report.
2007. http://ochaonline.un.org/News/NaturalDisasters/Bangladesh/
tabid/2707/Default.aspx


 Zemp M, et.al. Global glacier changes: Facts and figures. UNEP world
glacier monitoring service. 2008.


 Kehrwald NM, Thompson LG, Yao TD, et al. Mass loss on Himalayan glacier
endangers water resources. Geophys Res Lett. 2008;35(L22503).
16. Gregory PJ, Johnson SN, Newton AC, Ingram JS. Integrating pests and
pathogens into the climate change/food security debate. J Exp Bot. 2009;
60:2827–2838.

 Hatfield J, Takle G, Grotjahn R, et al. Chapter 6: Agriculture.
In Draft of National climate assessment development. 2013;11 Jan:227–
261. http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-
publicreviewdraft-chap6-agriculture.pdf

 Brown L. World on the edge: How to prevent environmental and economic
collapse. First ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.;
2011:240.


 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Office of the Director,
Agricultural Development Economics Division Economic and Social
Development Department. High level expert forum—How to feed the world
2050. 2009.

OK, you want to take the actual empirical data route?

How about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyIdwDbtcGs

Or is NASA lying and making up satellite data?

The evidence is out there. For fucks sake I live right on the water and I can tell where this shit is headed. I've visited glaciers. As long as you're looking at the actual planet earth it's evident.

Carbon dioxide traps in heat.

The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown by about 60% during the extremely short timescale of human civilization.

Here is the data for the last few years.




It's been hottest year after hottest year after hottest year. You can doubt all the data of the thousands of meteorological stations across the earth but you can't doubt visible net ice loss.

That shit can be seen from space.



You will always attack my arguments, trying to find holes in them but you can never attack the science, not successfully at least.

Yes, if climate change was not a problem, if we had a solution for it I'd say burn baby burn, let's go drill for some oil, count me in. But we're shooting ourselves in the dick if we continue down this path.

Edit: On the NASA study on Antarctic Ice mass.

You pointing out the Antarctic Mass gains study is predictable. The very scientist behind it knew that idiots would spin this the wrong way.

The study is about long term snowfall over 16,000 years and how we interpret data.

Even according to the study you posted here, the rate of increase in ice mass is falling and Antarctica is projected to go well into net loss in 20 to 30 years.

And Zwally's conclusion was as follows:

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

You brought the Antarctic study up, predictably enough, now are you willing to take the analysis of the scientists to it's logical conclusion?

If the Antarctic is actually gaining mass (which is still up in the air until we get better data from ICE sat 2), that means that when it starts contributing to sea level rise (rather than taking away from it) we're going to be in a much worse scenario.

If in total there was no net ice loss, the sea level would be stable.

The same scientists that you trust to interpret the most tentative of data to challenge the total mass gains/losses of Antarctica take the much more solid, easy to measure data of sea level rise for granted.

If you really based your opinion on the data you would do the same.


Of course the scientific consensus is different than that study and the net ice loss of the Antarctic is about 120 gigatonnes a year. But that's only According to NASA.

I'm sure the nuance is killing you.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/



I've been interpreting the data for the last 5 years. There's a lot of things we don't yet understand. There's a lot of unpredictability left in the system. But there's also things that are self evident. A self evident fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.

Increase the CO2, Increase the global temperature. Humans burn fossil fuel, 2ppm more CO2 is in the atmosphere the next year.

In a twisted way you're actually right on this point.


Burning coal releases CO2, Monoxide and Water but it also releases sulfates and nitrates.

Sulfates and nitrates reflect heat away from the earth. However sulfates and nitrates fall back into the earth way faster than Co2 gets removed. (in a matter of weeks compared to years decades)

Therefore once the coal stops burning, the planet warms up even quicker.

In fact if only 1/3 of the industrial world stopped burning coal runaway climate change would come into effect instantly, the arctic death spiral would conclude with ice free arctic in the summer (defined as less than 1 million sqkm of ice slosh in the arctic.

Wait another 3 years for the food shortages.


Wait another 3 years until you die of starvation from lack of food.

I'll refute all your "arguments".

1.The cartoon tries to impress the idea, using humor that climate change is belief without evidence, like a religion.

Science is a process by which personal biases are limited. One can do all the experimentation and observation needed, independently and inexpensively to get to the conclusion that the earth is warming.

The science demos date back to the 1850s and the idea that humans were going to cause a shift in the climate was voiced in the 1890s.

So basically in 2018, only a person who is scientifically illiterate will doubt that climate change is one of the biggest problems we're facing.

2. A list of people with irrelevant credentials, with a political agenda is useless. I don't trust people just because they have a PhD. I've seen way too many PhDs attached to scams and shams and ridiculous projects.

What is relevant is first of all the evidence, the observations, climate models with predictive capabilities.

Your second argument is fallacious, like the first. It's an argument from Authority and feigned concern. I hate these arguments. Would somebody think of the children? Would somebody think of the poor starving people in Africa that you would be helping if you hand me over your money. Sincerely FUCK YOU AND ANYONE WHO MAKES THAT SHITTY ARGUMENT.

3. A video about the aforementioned list, 16 minutes, Since I already refuted this I don't need to watch it.

4. A 30 minute video titled: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore" that has all the promise of conspiratorial garbage, I'll watch a little just to refute it. I'm getting the vibe of a paid of conference of speakers with dirty coal money stuffed in their pockets. Same people that said smoking doesn't cause cancer and will make your dick hard. There's always paid whores out there and this is a very old trick. Trying to co-opt scientifically sounding names and paying off sad failures to channel people into their shitty arguments.  I never cared about Greenpeace. The name Dr Patrick Moore means nothing to me. But he is important sounding. They'd never publish the same video without adding Dr before his name or the word Greenpeace and I don't think anyone is dumb enough not to know why.

So these guys are propped up by the heartland institute. The bias here is palpable.

Here is a real lolcow from the Heartland institute from the wikipedia article, with source and all:

Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.

Source: Tesler LE, Malone RE (July 2010). ""Our reach is wide by any corporate standard": how the tobacco industry helped defeat the Clinton health plan and why it matters now". American Journal of Public Health. 100 (7): 1174–88. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150. PMC 2882403. PMID 20466958.

They are also the same people behind that list, so we've just been seeing the same argument over and over.

5. Yikes, It's the same shit. But I don't want to visit this sketchy site again.



I don't know what to say, this was a mountain of shit. Compare this to a mountain of evidence for Climate change and it's impacts.

Starting with increased rates of sea level rise.
and
A Net loss of Glaciers.

These two can be observed by anyone.

It takes an incredible amount of heat to actually melt ice. To get from 0C Ice to 0C water it takes the same heat as taking 0C water close to boiling.

In fact to melt just 50 grams of ice you need 4000 Calories or 4 kcal.

So when more ice is melting then forming you know that the climate of a local place is changing.

I don't even need to look it up, I know the evidence will be there. Let's look at Glacier National Park.

Here is what I got off the Internet. I bet a deeper search would just point out to the same conclusion: "At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today."


And this is my argument.

Also try and refute this, as a source or as a list of arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg

TL;DR:

An infinite supply of energy and the capability to turn it into the resources you need at the time is magical thinking. It's nice to believe that we can produce a fusion reactor or enough alternatives to run our civilization from here to a Star Trek age of over-abundance.
But that's just magical thinking at this point in time. Please don't underestimate the convenience of oil energy and all that we take for granted right now.



Energy is not free. None of the alternatives (to oil) is a viable replacement for the foreseeable future.
It takes a whole lot of oil to create a solar panel. You could not run civilization on solar panels and wind turbines and Geothermal just yet.

 Human civilization already uses about half of the products of photosynthesis on a global scale.


If you have the patience this short documentary goes though all potential energy sources and why they are not the solution to our problem, It's from 2012, but it still very much applies today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg



Civilization requires a lot more than energy, so a few solar cell farms or wind turbines won't cut it.
To turn energy into food we need a lot of infrastructure. Growing the same food in a few decades will be a lot more difficult than it is today.

You say vertical farming, I say that takes a lot of resources as well. We don't have a lack of solar energy or even a lack of carbon dioxide in the air, slightly increased plant growth rates using hydro or Aeroponics in high tech farms can be part of the solution indeed may become a necessity but they still need a lot of resources, none the less of which is insulating materials and the ability to run construction equipment (very energy intensive).
 
Having a source of electricity is useless without a source of water. A source of energy doesn't automatically ensure a viable water supply.
Intense rainfall where the ground loses the capacity to store the water is also useless.

Topsoil that takes centuries to accumulate can be used in years. Acquifers that take thousands of years to fill up can be used in decades.

I would argue that if all you have is energy you can't necessarily provide everything else.


Example: 100 Gigawatt solar farm in the desert trying to support a settlement of 500 people.

Energy is abundant.  You start by pumping water and using it to grow food. The aquifer dries up.

How do you get water?

You could try and get it from the air using your excess energy, but that would be more than 1000 times less efficient than osmosis. Let's say that you can desalinate water from the sea. Now you're spending mass amounts of energy to get water transported (without infrastructure) and desalinated (also without infrastructure).

A lot of the materials we use today use oil (plastic bottles, plastic tarps, asphalt roads) if that infrastructure craps out, all those will start breaking down.

To use transportation with your electricity you generally need batteries (if you're going to be efficient) but to get batteries you need a lot of minerals that you may not have access to (or the ability to create them). You ran out of batteries, you can't grow food without a stable water supply, your crops fail, you starve....Game Over

Let's say that you try to make ethanol to run conventional engines. Congratulations, you can't get anywhere close to where oil got us and due to climate change your crop fails, you get no ethanol and you invested a lot of time and human capital.... Game over.



Let's say that the aquifer is big enough that you can pump water as long as you have electricity. Let's even say that your solar panels don't break down (or that you can somehow replace them).

The plastics of your greenhouses start breaking down, without a source of oil and the petrochemical industry you can't replace them. The harsh desert reclaims your food production area.... You starve. Game over.

STOP!

The program you're looking for is TestDisk

https://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk


I've used it to successfully recover gigabytes of files in burned up disks. It's free and open source.



Don't mess with your disk, don't re-format it again. Don't write any files to it.

Using TestDisk you can look through and recover what is still left there to recover.


Recovering the whole disk, depending on size will take more than 24 hours so you need to be patient. If you choose to recover the max amount (if the drive was full and you recover 500GB it could be as fast as 8 hours.


Edit: You don't need a third party to recover your data for you, but if you have a trusted friend who's competent with using advanced computer programs sit down with him, offer him some money, some food, some drinks something and let him help you with the data recovery.

I've been following the arctic death spiral and climate change for years. I've read countless material and my interpretation of it is that civilization will collapse during my lifetime.

I give us 12-50 years at the most.

My reasoning, summarized is as follows.

The temperature of the planet is increasing due to CO2 and Methane increases as well as a significant change in albedo (reflectance).

Civilization broadly defined is the ability to grow grain at scale, store it and distribute it according to social status.

Grain crops will fail due to a change in weather patterns, soil depletion and droughts. The consequences of this cannot be understated, civilization will end. Without enough food, there is no reason for anyone to keep their jobs, and not a lot of people will work if their money is worthless.

In fact we're living though the 6th mass extinction, the climate has changed very rapidly and a lot of species are simply running out of habitat. The era we're at right now is the anthropocene. (anthropos meaning human as in "man")

Without enough food and the proper climate, future generations will inherit a planet that is no longer inherently human habitat. Most complex organisms will become extinct. Most humans (if not all) will die of starvation.

I've thought of possible scenarios of how this might go.

The most likely is that the last human starves in a bunker in 2100 or so. In another, the human population is decimated time after time but technology and human ingenuity saves a small number of us, our future is one living in a planet with no wildlife, the only wild organisms surviving being algae microbes and some extremophiles here and there.

We have nuclear powered boats, they way about half as much as these container ships but if there was a fight, I'd much rather be the guy in the aircraft carrier than the guy in the container ship.


If this is a dick measuring contest I'll put it in different terms.

The wolves are smaller and weigh less then the sheep.


But I agree, we need to build a ship regardless of all of that.

Nothing went wrong, keep it!

I'm back from work!
I'm sending a little more as I'm figuring something out with my wallet. Keep any extra as an early bird special....

Thanks!

Edit: Here is one of the txids: 6427e61e60fa8671e49ff286791b19638c3defb58d923fa022a86193e460f0a4
                                           Here it is at a Syscoin Block Explorer:
                                           https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sys/tx.dws?6427e61e60fa8671e49ff286791b19638c3defb58d923fa022a86193e460f0a4.htm
                                           *I sent more, keep as per above, its yours!

I accept the trade. Send 0.00014 btc to the following address 3HVQ2nXfgyq3fPPPfm2MxQk7acQBFKBng6
Awaiting SYS address I have to leave my computer I´ll be back to send the coins in less than 11 hours.

I noticed that the amount you want to trade is really small. Are you sure it´s worth the fees to go through with this transaction?
If you change your mind about this just let me know.

It's negotiable, we can go either by coinmarketcap's satoshi cost which at the moment is 0.00001418
Or we can go by the the cost on binance which is: 0.00001424


You can make an offer and post a syscoin address, If I accept the offer I'll post a bitcoin address, then you send me bitcoin and I send you syscoin.

Current balance I'm willing to trade is 3000 SYS I don't have minimum per transaction but buying 1 SYS would be a waste of transaction fees for you, I'll be working and travelling a lot, so I will not be on the computer a lot for the next couple of weeks.

You could say the same about bitcoin and most stocks, yet you choose to spam my thread with a gigantic picture.

I'm selling syscoin for the reason I stated in the OP. I have a whole lot more, and I generate some. My total SYS will be increasing but I'm ok with letting some go.
Aren't you the troll that's fudding syscoin as hard as he can these past few months?


Your post has been archived for future reference, you little troll!
Archived post: https://web.archive.org/web/20181012154149/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5048746.msg46801890

Username: KonstantinosM
Rank: Hero
Current number of posts: 1061
Bitcoin Address: 3NvnUMVkTnKNnVosntLDPH1AM2mdif7eh2

I would like to apply to this signature campaign, I understand the last word on available spots is this:


But I'd like to apply just in case there's an opening. I will change my signature if I'm accepted. I will accept spots lower than my rank as well if available.

Hello, I'm willing to sell small amounts of Syscoin in exchange for bitcoin.

If anyone is interested respond below. My supplies are limited but I'm willing to stay here on a long term basis.

The advantage of doing business with me is that there are no exchange fees and we can negotiate a price (no sliding or waiting on the exchange).

My balance that I'm willing to trade away at this point in time is only about 3,000 Syscoin. I don't need to sell it and I'm fully behind the Syscoin project I'm going to be using the bitcoin for re-balancing my portfolio over the long term.

Are you willing to put money on the table?

I'm willing to bet 0.01 BTC or maybe the equivalent in Today's dollars that bitcoin will not reach $3000 in 2018.


So, are you man enough to take me up on that bet? Or are you just a no-coiner loser who makes useless predictions based on hope?

UBI is the smartest solution to economic inequality.

There is enough money for everyone to reach maximal happiness (in the US) however most people struggle to just get the basics.

If we had a UBI than we'd eliminate poverty, malnutrition, we'd probably lower the rates of obesity (due to increased affordability of health foods), lower employee disgruntlement, improve on education, and end the model where you have to work to be worth anything to society.


We all stand on the backs of giants. No-one alive today was the first to invent electricity or fire or farming. There is no reason why your birth should dictate whether your life is one of suffering and lack or one of luxury and endless entertainment.


The people that really like to work, will keep on working. But the people who really don't like it can just keep on living. They get less stuff but they don't need to live in constant stress, and creative types can get to creating and inventing types can get to inventing and curious people get to experiment.


The benefits far outweigh the increased taxation at the top brackets and redistribution of wealth. After all, nobody would have financial difficulties (as long as society and civilizations keeps running well) after UBI.

I was browsing the marketplace when I came across this offer.

I wish the exchange rate of syscoin to lambo was much lower.

(1,603,621.80 SYS)

Quantity Remaining: 1

Report offer
A local accident free Lamborghini Gallardo LP550-2 Bicolore Coupe. See Bluestarmotors.com for more information or call Rob at 604.649.1975 Price in SYS subject to final conversion rate.

Another great update on the project. Sometimes I feel like I'm not engaged enough and then I realize I check how the project is going almost daily. I'll try and hold off and only check weekly.

Software can only be developed that fast after all. I can't wait until this project truly takes off. It may take years, and it's great having such regular updates.

Well, I'll buy into your project only if you can prove that god is real and you can convert me from being an atheist.

Oh wait. You can't.

Seriously this is why I hate religion in our society, it always excludes people not following that religion. One of the reasons I like bitcoin is because it doesn't have "In God We Trust" written all over it.


In fact the only motto of bitcoin I remember is Vires in numeris.