-1=e^ipi

Meant to say populations, not UN populations. Prior to the current projections their medium projections did involve peaking by mid-century and that was the 'consensus for 20 years'. http://www.economist.com/news/international/21619986-un-study-sparks-fears-population-explosion-alarm-misplaced-dont-panic Anyway, current trends are slightly less than what is expected under a logistic projection.

I wouldn't completely 'dispatch' the claim that populations will peak mid-century. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/world-population-projections-iiasa-probabilistic

Assumptions such as how population will change over time, the rate at which the economy will shift to less CO2 intensive industries, the rate of technological progress towards greater efficiency per unit of CO2, etc. Didn't the UN use to have two types of medium projections? Maybe they changed things since I last checked. Anyway, their projection for 2100 (10.83 billion is still less than what I get using a logistic trend for 11.24 billion).

Violent assault is not an acceptable response to someone saying something you disagree with. This is true regardless of the race/sex of the individuals involved.

Rather than being private activities vs trying to impose it on everyone else, maybe more along the lines of 'we should be culturally sensitive to the religious beliefs of others and accommodate them, even if it results in gender segregation.' In the case of some muslims wanting gender segregation at swimming pools, maybe it's a public pool, but the muslims only want gender segregation once a week (so technically you could still swim unsegregated 6 out of 7 days a week at your local public swimming pool).

Thus it's in the child's best interest that the mother be with the child at a young age. Thus the mother is more likely to become the 'primary caregiver'. Thus we get sexist discrimination in custody because men can't lactate (technically there are some rare exceptions).

Work place death gender bias. Suicide rate gender bias. Life expectancy gender bias. Funding for cancer gender bias. Gender bias in sentencing for similar crimes. Etc. It's almost like there is a pattern here. Let's see if Cybercoma or WestCoastRunner can recognize it.

You just made a micro-aggression. If you worked for Berkeley, your job may be put at risk due to that statement.

I don't know. Depends where the conversation leads.

No. Use math to your heart's content.

You score -8.5. Congrats. You aren't an SJW authoritarian.

Maybe I should have said threatened by people just because they have an opinion they disagree with. Like how some muslim groups are trying to get gender segregated swimming pools, or some Jewish people want segregated buses or planes. Anyway, I'm mostly just making fun of SJWs. You have a score of -6.5.

As requested by Michael Hardner, this is a thread to discuss emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change. I’ll try to keep the original post relatively short, but I want to spend a paragraph or two on relevant aspects of this topic. Climate Sensitivity: Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is how much global temperatures will increase in the long run after a doubling of atmospheric CO2 due to all but the very slow feedbacks (primarily albedo feedbacks that have decay times on the order of centuries or millennia). ECS is the most common measure of climate sensitivity and the IPCC’s ECS range is from 1.5 C to 4.5 C. However, more recent studies strongly suggest that ECS is in the lower half of this range (1.5 C to 3.0 C) and I would argue that empirically evidence all but excludes the possibility of an ECS greater than 3 C. It takes a bit over a century to reach go from equilibrium and reach the new ECS after a doubling of atmospheric CO2. For shorter time scales, the transient climate response (TCR) is usually a better measure of how much warming you should expect due to CO2 doubling; the TCR is probably somewhere between 1.2 C and 2 C. The Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) is how much global temperatures change in the very long run due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2; ESS is probably between 2 C and 4C. Btw, radiative forcing due to CO2 concentrations is a roughly logarithmic function of CO2, which means the first doubling of CO2 concentrations causes roughly the same temperature increase as the second doubling of CO2 concentrations. You can see a more in depth discussion about climate sensitivity here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24202-what-is-the-correct-value-of-climate-sensitivity/ Uptake of CO2: After CO2 has entered the atmosphere, all of it doesn’t stay there forever. Some of it gets absorbed by plants, some of it gets absorbed by rocks, and some of it gets absorbed by oceans. By far oceans are the dominant source of up taking additional CO2. The behaviour of oceans roughly follows Henry’s law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law), which basically means that oceans will try to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere with respect to how much dissolved CO2 the oceans hold. In the long run, Oceans absorb roughly 85% of emitted CO2, but in the short run the effect of oceans is only half. If one combines the effect of temperature increase due to emitted CO2 and the rate at which CO2 gets absorbed, maximal warming due to emitting CO2 occurs after roughly 1 decade (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article). Below is a diagram of the BERN model, which gives you an idea of what percentage of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere after a certain amount of time: Temperature-CO2 Feedback: As temperatures warm, oceans are less able to hold CO2 and permafrost melts, releasing CO2. As a result, warmer temperatures release CO2, which causes more warming. This is a positive feedback. Contrary to what the media may tell you, the strength of this feedback isn’t that large. Based on empirical data (be it Pleistocene ice core data or papers such as this http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html)the strength of this feedback is very likely below 30 ppm/C. Polar Amplification: Polar regions are expected to warm faster according to both empirical data and climate models. The polar amplification factor is roughly 2.5. Which means that if global temperatures increase by 1C, then the temperature of polar regions increases by roughly 2.5 C; by contrast equatorial regions increase in temperature by approximately 2/3 the increase in global temperature. Below gives you a rough idea of which regions of Earth warm faster: Hurricanes and Extreme Weather Events: There is a lot of misleading information out there about the relationship between extreme weather events and climate change. Climate change doesn’t necessarily cause an increase in extreme weather events. In fact, since the temperature difference between poles and equator is expected to decrease due to global warming, and weather events on Earth try to act as heat engines that transport heat from equator to poles, many extreme weather events will decrease in magnitude or frequency. For example, Tornadoes in Tornado alley are expected to decrease. Most of the increase in hurricane frequency from 1980-2005 is actually due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), not due to increases in greenhouse gases. Since studies discussing various extreme weather will likely be brought up in this thread, I would encourage skepticism about a study’s definition of extreme weather. Many studies will define extreme weather as any large deviation in observed weather/climate from the historic mean. These types of definitions are problematic because by definition any deviation (be it cooling or warming) from the historic mean is going to result in more extreme weather so these definitions don’t even satisfy the transitive property. These types of definitions would also suggest that a winter in Ottawa of -20C is less extreme than a winter of -5C, even though most people would consider -20C to be more extreme than -5C. Jet streams: Jet streams are expected to weaken due to climate change since climate change lessens the Earth’s temperature gradient. This could lead to more static weather conditions primarily in the Northern Mid-latitudes. For example, an increase in global temperatures by 3C may cause an increase in the frequency of prolonged droughts in Northern midlatitudes by 28% due to this effect. A thread on this topic can be found here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23461-effectsimplications-of-climate-change-on-jetstreams/. Precipitation Patterns: Contrary to what the media may suggest, climate change doesn’t mean that everything will become desert like. In fact it is arguably the opposite. As temperatures warm, air can hold more water (this follows the Clausius-Clapeyron relation which basically suggests that carrying capacity increases by 7% per 1 celcius). As a result, there is greater moisture transfer between oceans and continents due to climate change, so the continents get on average wetter even after taking evaporation into account as the Earth warms. This effect is clearly evident if one compares Earth’s vegetation today with Earth’s vegetation during the Last Glacial Maximum when global temperatures were 4 C cooler. However, things aren’t as straightforward as everywhere gets wetter. Due to how air circulates around the world, many deserts occur around 30 degrees North or South of the equator. Climate change may move this region poleward, which may cause places like California to become drier but Subsaharan Africa to get wetter. Also, depending on a place’s location relative to mountain ranges and land masses, places may become wetter or drier in response to changing wind patterns. Sea Level Rise: Sea rise this century will be half a meter with a confidence interval of plus or minus a quarter meter. This result is from the IPCC’s fifth assessment report and is fairly robust across a large range of emission scenarios. In the very long run (like after a two millenia) sea level rise will be more (approximately 3 m per degree of warming according to sea level differences compared to the Eemian (the last interglacial)). Ocean Acidification: As oceans absorb excess atmospheric CO2, they will become more acidic. There is a bit of a trade-off in that more ocean acidification means that there is less CO2 in the atmosphere so there is less global warming. Since the 18th century, Ocean pH has dropped by 0.11. It is expected to drop by about 0.25 by 2100. Even after the acidification, oceans will still be very alkaline in 2100 (pH of over 7.8). You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification CO2 Fertilization Effect: As one increases atmospheric CO2, one increases the CO2 available for plants to perform photosynthesis. As a result, increased atmospheric CO2 results in more plant growth. Optimal atmospheric CO2 for plant growth is 1000-1500 ppm (which corresponds roughly to the higher atmosphere CO2 levels that were seen for most of the past 600 million years; our low atmospheric CO2 levels are relatively recent geologically speaking). Some types of plants are more affected by CO2 fertilization than other plants. C4 plants like corn evolved to adapt to our very low CO2 environment so aren’t as affected by the CO2 fertilization effect as C3 plants like Rice. Discount Rates: In order to compare present costs/benefits with future costs/benefits, one needs a discount rate. A discount rate basically accounts for the fact that a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar tomorrow even after one accounts for inflation. The reason for this is that you could take a dollar today and invest it and get a return. For developed countries the social discount rate is generally considered to be between 3% and 7%; it is even higher for developing countries. The Canadian Treasury Board and the US Office of Management and Budget typically suggest a discount rate of 7% for cost benefit analyses. However, many cost-benefit analyses for climate change will use absurdly low discount rates (usually 2.5% to 3.5%), although they don’t really give much basis for this. Using very low discount rates for climate change studies yet much higher discount rates of 7% for everything else seems really inconsistent to me. I suspect that one of the reasons climate changes studies use very low discount rates is due to people trying to dogmatically obtain a conclusion that favours mitigation policy. If you see a result in this thread that uses a very low or very high discount rate, please be skeptical. Based on studies I have seen in the past that try to obtain the social discount rate based on the saving-consumption behaviour of people in the US (which gives a discount rate between 5% and 6%) I think that a discount rate of 5% is reasonable. 2 C Target: Inevitably, this thread will likely bring up the 2 C target. Many people have this belief that we are safe if warming is below 2C relative to pre-industrial levels and then once we pass 2C all hell breaks loose and the world is doomed. This is not the case, the impact of climate change is not a step function, it is continuous; 2.1 C of warming will have slightly more impact than 1.9 C of warming, 2.3 C of warming will have slightly more impact than 2.1 C of warming, etc. There is no scientific basis or even economic basis for the 2C target, the 2C target is an arbitrary political target that was created 20 years ago because a German scientist (Hans Joachim Schellnhuber) felt that politicians were too stupid to understand all the nuance and complexity of climate change. RCP 8.5: The representative concentration pathways (RCPs), which are emission scenarios created by the IPCC, will inevitably get mentioned in this thread. I want to clarify something about RCP 8.5. RCP 8.5 is NOT a REPRESENTATIVE business as usual scenario, despite what articles or even scientific papers may say. It technically a business as usual scenario, but it was creating using extreme assumption after extreme assumption so it is not representative. I’ll list 3 reasons why it is not representative. Firstly, the RCPs are based on CMIP5 climate models. CMIP5 climate models have numerous problems (such as 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations), but the biggest issue is that they are over sensitive. They have a median ECS of 3.2 C, which is inconsistent with empirical evidence, and the predictions made by CMIP5 models are very close to being falsified by recent data (as I explained in this thread http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24584-arcticantarctic-sea-ice-what-to-make-of-it/?p=1065868). Secondly, RCP 8.5 clearly overestimates future CO2 emissions based on empirical data and barely shows any impact of the population slowdown/decline that is expected to occur midcentury. For example, if I expect global population to follow a roughly logistic trend (this probably overestimates future population since the UN predicts global population will peak midcentury) and emissions per capita follow a roughly exponential trend, I get that global CO2 emissions per year will be 15 Gt of carbon in 2100. However, the RCP 8.5 has global annual CO2 emissions in 2100 of 27 Gt of Carbon. RCP 6.0 more closely resembles what is expected to happen under a no mitigation scenario. Lastly, RCP 8.5’s predictions of CH4 and N2O emissions are grossly inconsistent with what one should expect based on empirical evidence. RCP 8.5 predicts very large increases in CH4 and N2O after a rapid acceleration in emission rates, yet emissions per capita of both CH4 and N2O are decreasing. Rate of increase of atmospheric N2O and CH4 have both plateaued. Given that these are the next two most important greenhouse gases, RCP 8.5 is grossly overstates future warming. Realistically, the climate in 2100 should be approximately 2C warmer than current temperatures under a no-mitigation scenario.

I'm certainty screwed up. I never claimed it was sufficient. You on the other hand are basically ignoring the possibility that any gender bias exists. Btw, please go to some feminists or SJWs and tell them that the existence of a gender wage gap is not sufficient to demonstrate gender bias. I've explained why I disagree with you and gave counter points, which you refuse to respond to. Consistency and no double standards are important to me, but I guess they aren't important for you.

You got me there. Fine: 1) Saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a microaggression. 2) Internet anonymity should be abolished. 3) People should be fined or punished for making remarks that others find offensive. 4) Certain groups such as MRAs or pro-life groups should not be allowed to hold speaking events at universities. 5) I support free speech... but free speech does not include saying things that deeply offend people. 6) The media has a moral duty to make sure that the information presented doesn't lead people to the wrong conclusion about a particular social issue. 7) Universities should be a safe space for women where women don't feel threatened by opinions that frighten them. 8) Progressive western societies should respect the desires of religious minorities to segregate people based on gender. 9) It is racist to suggest that immigration is too high in Canada. 10) Criticizing Islam is racist. Please tell me your answers (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) for each one and and I'll give you your SJW authoritarian score (from -10 to 10).

Cybercoma, please try my SJW authoritarian test, since you scored so libertarian on your last result.

Makes about as much sense as 'custody by default goes to the primary breadwinner'.

You mean asking for consistency and pointing out a double standard? Look I agree that income shouldn't trump everything or be a major factor. But at the same time, it shouldn't be the case for 'caregiving' either. If two parents agreed to a situation where 1 parent primarily stayed home to look after the children and the other parent worked to provide income, I don't think that situation should favour either parent. To decide which parent should get custody, look at other factors, such as where the child would live if they were with a parent (maybe I location has a better school, daycare services, has a lower crime rate, less pollution, etc.), what is the availability of each parent (maybe I parent has a more flexible work schedule so can more easily pick up their child from school, take them to events, etc.), how nearby other family members are (maybe 1 parent has nearby grandparents that can help), does 1 parent have mental health issues (maybe have both parents psychologically evaluated or make them take some sort of test). Better yet, have each parent submit a written proposal for why they would provide the best living arrangement for the child in the future, and take off their names so that the judge doesn't know the gender of each applicant. Also, joint custody should generally be favored if it is feasible (such as if both parents live in the same city).

The mother apparently because she gave birth and had maternity leave.

Yes, I agree. You wouldn't, but how often is all else equal? Very rarely. So you are saying that other factors shouldn't matter? Or that joint custody is really that difficult to arrange in the majority of cases? Again, if someone claimed that culturally women are less willing to work hard and that is why there is a gender wage gap, would you agree with them or not? If not, why the inconsistency? It doesn't surprise me that the courts have a sexist gender bias.

I'm not waldo so I don't really care about that. I care about the quality of the work done. I'm on page 11 so far. It seems that it is criticizing Nordhaus 2013 because from what I can tell 2013 is a meta study and apparently there was poor propagation of error or heteroskedasticity wasn't dealt with properly or something along those lines plus it suggests there may be selectional bias. The 2008 paper isn't a meta study and performs a simple Ricardian approach (which I would argue avoids a lot of bias). Edit: also, the 2008 paper I referred to used the G-Eco estimates, it wasn't the dice paper. So I don't think the results of the pdf you linked to are applicable to the 2008 paper I referred to.

There needs to be more questions to take into account the authoritarianess of SJWs. I'll make a list below. 1) Is saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' a microaggression? 2) Should internet anonymity be abolished? 3) Should people be fined or punished for making remarks that others find offensive? 4) Should certain groups such as MRAs or pro-life groups not be allowed to hold speaking events at universities? 5) Do you support free speech... but free speech does not include saying things that deeply offend people? 6) Does the media have a moral duty to make sure that the information they present doesn't lead people to the wrong conclusion about a particular social issue? 7) Should universities be a safe space for women where women don't feel threatened by opinions that frighten them? 8) Should progressive western societies respect the desires of religious minorities to segregate people based on gender? 9) Is it racist to suggest that immigration is too high in Canada? 10) Is criticizing Islam racist? Please tell me your answers (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) for each one and and I'll give you your SJW authoritarian score (from -10 to 10).

Yes, it's always the fault of men. It's not like you could have cases where after a divorce parents strongly dislike each other and the parent with custody might use visitation rights as a tool to 'get back' at their former spouse by preventing their former spouse from seeing their child. *sarcasm* Men are culturally the ones who earn more money. Does that mean we should just dismiss the gender wage gap? Men are culturally the ones who get in leadership positions. Does that mean all these campaigns to get more females CEO's or politicians should stop? Well I'm glad you admit it is cultural sexism.

I never said that either the mother or father would give the best care. I just think that it should depend on which parent would provide the best life for the kids in the future. To suggest that a parent isn't providing 'care' if they are working to bring in income for their children is ridiculous. And this is also one of the reasons you have sexist bias in the courts. 'It's natural for mothers to look after children', 'Men that want to be around kids are creepy pedophiles', etc. Just because a child is more used to a certain thing, doesn't mean that continuing that thing is in the child's best interest. Maybe the child would benefit from having a greater diversity of caretakers/role models to look up to. Maybe having more joint custody would result in a greater on average quality of time with parents since when a parent isn't with their child, they can prepare more for when they see the child (so there might be decreasing returns of a parent being with a child in terms of the outcome of the child). Let's say a child is used to eating potatoes every day. Does that mean the child should continue to eat potatoes every day, or would they benefit from eating a greater diversity of food? I agree stability is important. But again, a child being with the mother 100% of the time is just as stable as the child being with the father 100% of the time. And you can also make relatively stable joint custody arrangements if the child knows when they will be with which parent well in advance. A divorce is also disruption. Stability matters but other things matter as well. Stability isn't an outright veto to other things. Being in the best possible living arrangement for the next several years is generally more important than the additional disruption due to changing 'primary caregivers' during a divorce. For example, if parent A was the primary caregiver and parent A is a crackhead, where as parent B isn't, most likely the disruption over time due to living with a crackhead parent will exceed the disruption due to changing primary caregivers once. This is the excuse to enact sexist discrimination in the courts for child custody. Stability does result in higher child outcomes, but living with a parent with higher income also results in higher child outcomes. It used to be that the parent with the higher income trumped everything, which meant that men took custody the vast majority of the time. A few decade ago it was completely swapped. It was sexist then and it is sexist now. Funny how our society has such a double standard with respect to outcomes that appear to disadvantage women compared to outcomes that appear to disadvantage men. What if someone defending the gender wage gap said: "You want more women to earn more money? Then fight for women to work ridiculously long hours into an early grave. Advocate that women take riskier jobs which increase their rate of workplace death." Yet we have major politicians like Obama and Trudeau propagating the myth that women earn 77% of what men earn for similar work and that this is due to sexism. Is your position on this consistent with the gender wage gap? Or the life expectancy gap? Or the CEO gap? I doubt you have consistency. If an outcome appears to disadvantage women, it's because men discriminate so it's the fault of men. If there is an outcome gap that appears to disadvantage men, it's because men are lazy or flawed or something so it's the fault of men. Either way it's the fault of men because apparently men have 100% of agency in everything. I never said equal. I just think a lot of the current difference is due to sexism, you seem to dismiss this as a possibility. Tell me, if a feminist told you that the gender wage gap was due to sexism, would you agree with him/her or would you dismiss the possibility of sexism and tell him/her that 'you think it should be equal for some strange reason'? Because being a primary caregiver is not the only factor that should matter when determining which parent would be best for the child to live with. That is why. Other factors exist.

I thought you were making a rhetorical question. Sorry if I misunderstood you. But where does the 1/2 or 1/3 come from? I thought you were alluding to something you read previously.