-1=e^ipi

Millions of humans are born every day. Why is this one so special?

Okay, you have a bit of a point. There is a small amount of attention being paid to these issues. But it is greatly muffled by the mainstream narrative and often it is not socially acceptable to speak out (example: Look at the Honey Badger panel getting kicked out of Calgary comic con 2-3 weeks ago). I'm not trying to blame any gender for the way things are (all genders have agency). The current situation is arguably the inevitable result of the industrial revolution due to social and biologic evolution that favoured societies that valued women more than men (i.e. male disposability theory). Females complaining about discrimination is socially acceptable. Males complaining about discrimination is not socially acceptable because it goes against the core of the traditional male gender role (males are supposed to be though, 'man up', 'grow balls' and not complain). But there are also many non-physical skills that men excel at that is becoming more valuable. There is some neurological evidence that males are on average better suited at programming, STEM fields, spatial awareness, etc. I don't see how the changing work environment can explain such a large university attendance gender gap, nor the gender pay gap for unmarried urban millenials. But it is interesting that many people in society have a double standard with respect to differences in outcomes between genders: If an outcome is preferable to males: Clearly this is discrimination and it's the fault of men for discriminating! If an outcome is preferable to females: Clearly this is due to biological differences and it's the fault of men for not being female enough! I can find examples of this social attitude if you want (Cenk Uygur or the Young Turks is a good example). I don't agree with this. Why do women have to 'destroy' their careers if they want to have children? Why can't the spouse contribute equally to raising a child? Also, this assumes that females will be able to have children if they want to. With movements like MGTOW and Soushoku-Danshi the number of males willing to enter long term relationships (or even relationships at all) is decreasing and there will probably be a large 'marriage willingness' gender gap over the coming decades in developed countries (which will lead to demographic collapse).

How many of these CEOs are millennials? Basically zero. Given the trends we see for millennials, how do you think that ratio will look in 20-30 years time? But I get your mentality. As long as there is 1 place where women are underrepresented (STEM fields or top 500 CEOs), all male issues must be ignored. Millennial males just have to resign themselves to being scape goats for social justice until the older generations die out. But women do not make up over 60% of the population. And I was talking specifically about millennials. There are more millennial males than there are millennial females: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo10a-eng.htm Females outnumber males for older population groups because men have a much higher workplace death rate (92% of workplace deaths are male), men have a much higher suicide rate (4 times the female suicide rate), and men have a shorter life expectancy.

Did they control for number of citations, number of publications or teaching performance? How was seniority determined? Did they just use a simple Mincerian model of experience?

Note sure if my post is going to count as thread drift or not... If it is let me know. In the long run, people with higher levels of education tend to have higher earnings. So if females as a group are obtaining higher levels of education now, they will likely have higher earnings than their male counterparts in the future. When males made up 56% of university graduates it was 'proof' that university institutions were 'old boys clubs', that women were being discriminated against, and that quotas were needed. Now as women make over 60% of university graduates, there is nothing but silence. I guess it must be 'girl power' or something. It's almost like the constant campaigns in primary and secondary school to empower girls and push girls into post-secondary school (but not do the same for boys, it's not like boys need to be empowered or anything...), all of the female-only scholarships that make it easier for females to obtain financial support to pursue their education, all of the media portrayal of men as stupid buffoons, violent thugs or rapists, and all of the social justice campaigns that teaches young boys that they should feel ashamed of their 'privilege' and teaches society that it is preferable to favour women when it comes to employment or education in order to reduce social injustice actually have an effect. Or maybe males are just defective human beings.

Women out earning men is a theme that will probably prop up more this decade. Unmarried female millennials in urban areas outearn their male counterparts for Canada, UK, US and other western countries. Females make up 60%+ of university graduates.

Thought I would post this link of a summary of some of the results of a study by Peter Lang: https://www.masterresource.org/wind-power/peter-lang-on-australias-windpower-costs-and-small-emissions-gains/ Shows why a high emphasis on wind/solar is problematic, and can even result in an increase in CO2 emissions because it must be supplemented with coal in order to have smooth energy production. Nuclear is a much better option.

One thing the above 'business as usual' model doesn't take into account is that there is only a limited amount of fossil fuels left. There are ~2795 gigatons of fossil fuel reserves. If all of this were burned all at once, this would correspond to 1312 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2. Although, in the long run 85% of that is absorbed by oceans, so this would correspond to a long term atmospheric CO2 level of (1312 + 400 - 278)*0.15 + 278 = 493 ppm. With a climate sensitivity of say 2.5 C, this would correspond to 2.07 C increase relative to pre-industrial levels. More realistically, it takes a long time for oceans to absorb excess CO2; if we assume that transient uptake is roughly half of emissions, then this means that atmospheric CO2 would peak around 1056 ppm, which would correspond to ~4.8 C increase in temperatures relative to pre-industrial temperatures. Obviously, this doesn't take into account the increased levels of CH4, N2O, nor the CO2-temperature feedback, but I thought I would throw some numbers around.

A bit more on emission scenarios: I was looking at trends in CH4, N2O, SO2 and minor GHGs. It seems that I might be able to make a reasonable 'business-as-usual' emission scenario by simply assuming that emissions per capita follow an exponential trend and population follows a logistic trend. If I take the CO2 emission data after 1970 (the year that a major clear-air act amendment passed in the US, so it represents a new 'policy regime'), then an exponential function fits fairly well to real GDP per unit of CO2 emitted (the last post I used a quadratic trend but used data starting in 1950). If both real GDP per unit of CO2 emitted and real GDP per capita follow exponential trends, then this simplifies to emissions per capita following an exponential trend. A similar assumption (exponential trend in emissions per capita) fits the CH4 and N2O emissions (I can infer emissions by using the 12 year and 114 year decay times for CH4 and N2O as recommended by the EPA, plus take into account the temperature feedback that I can estimate from pleistocene data). The trend in SO2 emissions also fits this assumption (despite the fact that global SO2 emissions have been slowly decreasing since the 70s). As for trends in minor greenhouse gas emissions such as CFC11, CFC12, CFC113, CCl4, SF6 emissions (which I can infer using empirically accepted decay time values) they follow a roughly exponential trend for emissions per capita starting around 1990. This may be due to the Montreal Protocol being in 1989 and then the amendment to the clear air act for CFCs being in 1990 (so starting in 1990 there is a new 'policy regime' for minor GHGs due to concerns about Ozone depletion).

@ Charles - Thank you for letting me know.

Out of curiosity, did you delete the comments I made because the conversation overall was unproductive, or was there anything in particular that I said that was immature garbage / personal attacks? Edit: would the references to 'listen and believe' be considered over the top?

@ socialist - if you say so.

Hilary Clinton has also declared that 'Women are the primary victims of war'. Because, you know the individuals of the gender/sex that are doing the majority of the dying in war couldn't possibly be the primary victims of war. Look at all those privileged non-primary victims of war in the image above!

I thought I would try to re-estimate the rate at which the oceans + biosphere uptake CO2. This uptake roughly follows Henry’s law, so the rate of uptake will be proportional to atmospheric CO2 minus Henry’s constant times dissolved CO2 in the ocean. As you increase temperature, Henry’s constant goes down (water can’t hold as much CO2), and the effect of the CO2 temperature feedback is roughly (25 +/- 5) ppm per K (95% confidence interval as obtained from Pleistocene ice core data). It is also known that the oceans can absorb roughly 85% of emitted CO2 in the long run. The number of gigatones of carbon emitted that correspond to a 1 ppm increase of CO2 can be calculated as follows: The mass of atmosphere is 5.15 x 10^18 kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth). Average molar mass is of the atmosphere is 0.78*28 + 0.21*32 + 0.01*40 = 28.96 g/mol. Thus the atmosphere has roughly 1.778 x 10^20 moles. Carbon has a molar mass of 12 g/mol, which suggests that 1 ppm corresponds to 2.13 gigatons. To estimate the rate of CO2 uptake, I’ll use: Past Human CO2 emissions: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems Past atmospheric CO2 levels: Mauna Loa + Law Dome data Past global temperatures: Hadcrut4 + the assumption that there was negligible global temperature change from 1751 to 1850. This gives me data from 1751-2008. I can calculate annual CO2 uptake by taking the annual CO2 emissions, dividing by 2.13 gigatons per ppm and then subtracting the annual change in CO2. If I assume that CO2 levels were in equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans in 1751, then I can integrate annual CO2 uptake, multiply by 0.15/0.85 and add atmospheric CO2 in 1751 to obtain dissolved CO2 in ppm. I can estimate the rate of CO2 uptake by performing a linear regression of: Uptake = k*(CO2 – (25 +/- 5)*T – dissolved_CO2) + error This is a simple exponential decay to equilibrium model (with the CO2-temperature feedback added). Estimating this model (and taking into account the uncertainty in the CO2-temperature feedback) gives k = 0.0211 +/- 0.0016. This suggests that the decay time towards equilibrium is roughly k/(1 + 0.15/0.85) = 40.3 +/- 3.1 years. This suggests that the rate of CO2 uptake is much faster than I suggested it was earlier in this thread. This result agrees with a paper I skimmed recently which suggested that the decay time of ocean uptake is between 35 and 90 years (I forgot the link ).

@ Michael - I've changed my mind; if you want to discuss the economic impacts of climate change in this thread, I am fine with that. Anyway, I thought I would try to estimate a very crude model to predict CO2 emissions under a no-mitigation scenario. I'll use the identity: Annual CO2 Emissions = Global Population * Real GDP per capita / (GDP per unit of CO2 emitted) I'll use 3 data sets over the years 1950-2008 (the area of overlap): Global Annual CO2 Emissions (in metric tonnes of carbon): http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html Global Population: http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx Global real GDP per capita: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/data/mpd_2013-01.xlsx It is well known that for centuries, the global population was increasing roughly exponentially. However, currently the global population growth rate is slowing down (people are having less children) and it is expected to peak or plateau mid century. A simple model that can approximate this behaviour is the logistic function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function). The logistic function is used frequently in ecology to model the population of other species, so why not humans? To estimate the logistic function of human population growth, I merely have to perform a linear regression of dN/dt = A*N + B*N^2 + error, where N is the population of the planet and dN/dt is the annual change in population of the planet. Estimating this gives A = 2.76*10^-2 and B = -2.31*10^-12. Using the above estimate of the differential equation, plus the fact that the global population in 2010 is 6916183482, I get that the 95% confidence interval for the global population in 2100 is 11.28 +/- 0.14 billion people. Note that this error only includes the error assuming the model is true; so is an underestimate of the true uncertainty. For changes in real GDP per capita over time, this follows a roughly exponential trend (one can even look at real GDP per capita of the USA over the past 200 years to see that this trend can hold for centuries). Therefore, to estimate future real GDP per capita, I merely have to perform a linear regression of ln(y) = C + D*t + error, where y is real GDP per capita and t is time. Estimating this gives C = -31.57 and D =0.0202. Using the above estimate, I get that the 95% confidence interval for real GDP per capita in 2100 is ~(47630 +/- 4510) dollars (1990 US $). For changes in economic output per unit of CO2 emitted, this appears to follow a roughly quadratic trend since 1950 (the ratio is both increasing and accelerating over time). To estimate future economic output per unit of CO2 emitted (under a no-mitigation scenario), I perform a linear regression of Ratio = E + F*t + G*t + error. Estimating this gives E = 3.90*10^12, F = -3.99*10^9 and G = 1.02*10^6. Using the above estimate, I get that the 95% confidence interval for economic output per unit of CO2 emitted under a no-mitigation scenario in 2100 is 24.56 +/- 1.32 trillion dollars (1990 US $) per gigaton of carbon. Now, using the identity Annual CO2 Emissions = Global Population * Real GDP per capita / (GDP per unit of CO2 emitted), I get that in 2100 the 95% confidence interval for Annual CO2 Emissions under a no-mitigation scenario is 21.9 +/- 2.4 gigatons of carbon per year. So under a no-mitigation scenario, we are looking at slightly over twice current emission levels (roughly 10 gigatons of carbon per year) by 2100.

This is a bit related to the SJW insanity that is infiltrating the West. Take a look at Stormfront or SJW on reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/StormfrontorSJW/. Each thread has a sentence from either a neo-nazi from Stormfront or a SJW with a few words removed and you have to guess if the sentence came from a Stormfronter or a SJW. I certainly can't tell. I tried 15 of them and only got 7 correct.

The sex and gender issues forum should be renamed sex, gender issues and social justice, because it is difficult to discuss sex and gender issues without discussing social justice. That is what 3rd wave 'feminism' is all about (intersectionality).

I found this immensely funny, but other people probably won't understand the full context. Apparently, the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) infiltration of the mainstream media has gotten to the point where the BBC has now achieved Poe's Law. Poe's Law: "Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism [by other extremists]." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law So I'll give some context, an 20 year old British male from York by the name of Godfrey Elfwick created a parody twitter account of Social Justice Warriors. https://twitter.com/godfreyelfwick Godfrey's twitter profile describes Godfrey as a "Demisexual genderqueer Muslim Atheist. Literal good guy. Itinerant jongleur. Pronouns are Xir, Xirs Xirself. Filters life through the lens of minority issues." If that isn't obvious enough of a parody, I'll list some of the tweets by Godfrey: "Don't want to be labelled a rapist? Then respect women's boundaries and remember that consent can be revoked at any time. Even after sex." "Remember #FreeSpeech and #HateSpeech are synonymous. Your right to offend stops at my right to not be offended." "It's a sad fact that as a trans-black person I suffer worse bigotry and abuse than most other black people. #Racism #WrongSkin" "I used to identify as #atheist as I don't believe in God but when I saw how racist the movement has become I converted to moderate Islam." "I was born white but realized later in life that I was #WrongSkin and transitioned mentally to black." "I have #HIV and I still donate blood. If people are too bigoted to accept it then they shouldn't have lost so much in the first place." "Universities should be places where the correct topics are discussed with the correct people in the correct environment. #Feminism" "If you're a straight man and you don't find #BruceJenner sexually attractive since he became a woman you're transphobic" "Men will be men. Thank god I'm a transwoman so it doesn't apply to me." Anyway, the BBC's Angela Sheeran saw one of Godfrey's tweets: "I've never actually seen #StarWars but the fact that the bad guy was all black and ate watermelons was unbelievably racist even for the 70's" And believing that Godfrey is a SJW with the 'correct opinion' (and unable to distinguish between parody and a true believe of SJWism), she invites him (or should I say xir?) onto her show to discuss the recent star wars trailer. Here is a brief clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EabGCJ9rm4w The full 'interview' is 8 minutes long and includes Angela Sheeran rambling on about how Frozen is sexist, terrifying and treats women as sex objects.

So you quote a study from 2001 and uses data from 1992-1997; it is 20 years out of date and is not anything close to an accurate description of society today. And if you actually read the paper, the unexplained portion of the gender gap is less than 5%; and that less than 5% gap is not necessarily discrimination, rather it is what is unexplained by the model (so could be discrimination). So congratulations! 20 years ago there might have been a gender pay gap less than 5% for managers and executives. I made no such claim about whether men and women are on par for more senior jobs. As for women earning more then men, I was referring to specific demographic groups (Unmarried millennials in urban areas in US, Canada and UK), not for society a large. I recognize that US, Canada and UK are highly inhomogeneous and that there are demographic groups where men have outearned women, demographic groups where women outearn men, and demographic groups where there is no statistically significant gender gap in pay. Your wording here is a bit unclear, so could you please rephrase what you mean? Are you making the claim that there is no statistically significant difference between the Mincerian return to education for men and women? Or are you trying to refer to the fact that that women are 60%+ of university graduates as the explanation for why millennial women in urban areas are outearning men? I also have 'the data'. I have looked at the raw data of recent (2014) labour surveys and done various regressions to explain differences in income between men and women. The 'gender pay gap' very much favours millennial women in urban areas. One of the reasons why you don't see this reported on or explored or published in papers is because of the immense confirmation bias of the media, the education system and academia. The media and education system constantly push the 'women are oppressed' narrative on society. 'Researchers' looking at gender differences in pay often approach the issue dogmatically and try to reach a pre-determined conclusion; anything that doesn't conform with the mainstream narrative (if an individual that would dare consider the possibility is able to get in a position where they are able to do an objective study) is unlikely to get through the peer-review process or get reported upon by the media. I'll give you an example of the immense confirmation bias in research in this topic. Take Oereopoulos 2011 http://oreopoulos.faculty.economics.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Why-Do-Skilled-Immigrants-Struggle-in-the-Labor-Market.pdf This study and similar studies have tried to look at the effect of the name of the resume on the response rate. Particularly, the researcher is trying to see if there is a 'foreign name bias' that makes it harder for individuals with foreign names to find jobs. The study sent out resumes in the greater Toronto area in 2008-2009 to see if there was a bias. The study does find that there is a statistically significant negative effect of having a foreign name on getting a response to your resume, and this result was greatly reported on by the media. However, if you look at the details of the results, you will see that the study also found that being female had a statistically significant POSITIVE effect on having a response to your resume at the 1% confidence level. Not only that, but the magnitude of the 'male name bias' was larger than the magnitude of the 'foreign name bias'. And this isn't the only case where this result is found. Yet in the discussion of the paper, Oereopoulos doesn't really discuss this and it isn't reported on by the media at all. Why do you think this is? My explanation is that it doesn't fit into the societal narratives. In many parts of the West, these narratives are 'Women are oppressed, men are privileged, white people are privileged, non-white people are oppressed, etc." The narrative that "People with foreign sounding names are discriminated against; society is racist" fits perfectly with the SJW/3rd-wave-feminism ideology where as "Men are less likely to have responses to their resumes" doesn't. If such a study found that it was male names that had a statistically significant positive effect on having a response to your resume, do you think it would get swept under the rug like it is for female names? Of course not, it would be discussed in the paper and then the media would use it as proof as to how society is misogynist and females are oppressed.

The 50% is rate of natural uptake relative to current emissions, not the equilibrium response. The rate of natural uptake is proportional to the difference between atmospheric CO2 emissions and Henry's constant times oceanic concentration of dissolved CO2; so uptake depends directly on atmospheric CO2, not human CO2 emissions. If our emissions suddenly halved, the rate of natural uptake would initially stay the same. There is no scientific basis for this claim by the UNFCCC. But the natural re-absorption rate depends on atmospheric CO2 levels; a higher concentration of CO2 means a higher re-absorption rate.

It really doesn't. Remember that in the long run the oceans absorb 85% of emitted CO2, plus the biosphere absorbs more CO2 at higher levels of CO2 due to the CO2 fertilization effect. So if say emissions were stabilized at say 600 ppm, the ocean concentration of dissolved CO2 times Henry's constant at the point of stabilization is roughly 300 ppm, and the decay time of atmospheric CO2 is 100 years, and it takes 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon of fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm (all realistic numbers), then this would suggest that humanity could burn 6.39 gigatonnes of carbon per year without increasing atmospheric CO2. Current annual CO2 emissions is ~ 10 gigatonnes. Therefore, to stabilize CO2 levels at 600 ppm would only require a reduction in global emissions by ~36% from current levels. In any case, if we use an ECS of 1.5 to 3 C, then this suggests that this stabilization at 600 ppm would lead to a long run global temperature change of (1.5 to 3)*ln(600/278)/ln(2)-0.8 = 0.86 to 2.53 C relative to current temperatures.

Oh a SJW has come to enlighten heathens such as myself. Please enlighten me RB! Seriously though. With respect to the 'wage gap', the vast majority disappears once you take factors such as education, experience, industry, type of work, etc. and unmarried millennial women out earn millennial men in urban areas is Canada, US and UK. Men are half of victims of domestic abuse but receive far less support, and men are more likely to receive online harassment then women (Pew research in 2014 found that 44% of men and 37% of women experienced online harassment).

Economics is about more than dollars and cents.

But you can't really have meaningful discussions about the economic impacts without first understanding the magnitude of change that is to be expected due to climate change (which is why establishing climate sensitivity is important). After that there are many other things that need to be established (such as how much GHG emissions can we expect given different policies, how do we quantify and compare all the environmental changes, what is the response time of the climate to absorbing excess atmospheric CO2, etc.) before getting to what policy makes sense. To me, what to do about climate change is a priori indeterminant so the question of what to do about climate change cannot be answered without going through empirical evidence. If you want to discuss the economic choices, then perhaps it would be better to create a different thread because it might be better to have a thread that is dedicated to the science and discussing expected impacts of climate change (this one). I was thinking of making a thread to discuss emission scenarios and why I think some of the IPCC's emission scenarios such as RCP 8.5 are nonsense; perhaps trying to answer the emission scenario question next makes sense. But is there an economic 'consensus' given that there are so many unanswered questions such as climate sensitivity? Oh yes. Welcome to the 'denier' club Michael!

I'm not sure I agree with this. If these economists and engineers greatly misunderstand climate science and/or have a skewed perception about the impacts or magnitude of climate change then their policy suggestions will be based upon extremely flawed premises. Add on to this that there is no universally objective way (yet) to determine what is good or bad or how to deal with tradeoffs such as total economic output vs inequality of income (and the magnitude of climate change appears to be large enough such that the assumptions used to justify a traditional cost benefit analysis are greatly violated).