My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Essay

Moontanman,
"You say we need to stop carbon emissions with in thirty years. If we did the things that are necessary to do this without cutting our noses off to spite our faces then I would say yes." -whoops, that Zythryn's
See soil sequestration above, #349

"Everyone wants less government but no one can really deliver such a thing."
No, I think you missed my point.
Not less government, but better (different?) government is needed.

"Now we occupy every inch of arable land on the earth as well as most of the least desirable land."
Now with modern medicine to combat River Blindness, whole river valleys have been recently populated.
More unsustainable growth....

"Even if everyone on the earth lived in near poverty there would still not be enough to go around."
Actually, there is enough to support 9 Billion quite easily, if managed well and fairly. [Anybody know where I heard that?]

"We will kill the ecosystem of this planet if not with technology then with shear numbers. "
Yes, unless we change our ways (starting about 40 years ago...).

"While the continents were in this position we have had ice ages and warm interglacial periods."
Yes, but still more stable and habitable than in the more distant past.

"Warm would at least seem to be better for us than an ice age for sure!"
I completely disagree; but that's a whole 'nother Topic!

"We can't help but influence the Earth in one way or another so why shouldn't we do what is best for the human race instead the individual?" -MTM

Yes, we agree! I better stop there.
~Thanks Moon, I hope what I wrote above doesn't sound too self-righteous. I'm still open to discuss any point in detail.

We are already too far down the road to ruin as it is, 9 billion people, would there be room for anything but people and croplands? Would we really want to allow things to go that far? Tell me what you mean by better government, too many people seem to think their way is better but it just works out to be different. The preponderance of North/South coast lines might be as much responsible for the increased habitability than warm or cold. It does make for more species diversity. Wouldn't exploiting the resources of the solar system be better than ripping off mountains for metals and drilling everywhere we can for hydrocarbons? Space could allow us to kill two birds with one stone, win/win situation to put it in corporate speak.

[freeztar]

While this thread has taken an interesting turn, I feel that most of the recent posts would be better suited for the thread, "The Solutions to Global Warming include...".

That being said...

It was mentioned that the climate change issue is simple, but is complicated by denialists and such. I disagree. I believe it's precisely the complexity of climate that leads to the "AM radio nuts" misunderstanding and propagation of skepticism in the face of facts. Indeed, we might not even be typing in this thread if the issue was so easy to digest.

As disturbing as I find the claims of the denialists, I find equal resentment in CC proponents that blindly follow scientific claims without fully understanding the studies and experiments conducted to reach their conclusions (this is not directed at anyone here btw).

So, when it's all said and done, education is the key.
As such, I view this thread as a forum where denialists can state their claims or objections (scientifically of course), and those that have more knowledge on the subject can refute these claims and guide these people towards the current scientific stance on the subject (which is never one-sided). So while it may be frustrating to continually deal with the same objections and naive assertions from denialists, I feel it is the duty of the scientific community to address these issues in the hope that education will spread and eventually the objections slow to a trickle.

Bring it on!

[Essay]

Originally Posted by freeztar

....it is the duty of the scientific community to address these issues in the hope that education will spread and eventually the objections slow to a trickle.

Bring it on!

"We are already too far down the road to ruin as it is, 9 billion people, would there be room for anything but people and croplands?" -MTM

It's too late to google, but I think I recall hearing that you could fit 6 Billion people in Texas and they wouldn't be able to see each other (equally distributed).
Croplands is more of a problem, but there are ways. I hope someone else knows about this carrying capacity stuff (or I could try to find stuff later).

"Wouldn't exploiting the resources of the solar system be better than ripping off mountains for metals and drilling everywhere we can for hydrocarbons? Space could allow us to kill two birds with one stone, win/win situation to put it in corporate speak."

Yes, but right now....
What you're talking about is a mature Type 1 civilization; probably at least 500 years hence.

"The preponderance of North/South coast lines might be as much responsible for the increased habitability than warm or cold. It does make for more species diversity."

Very interesting observation; yep, that'll keep me lost in thought for a good while.

"Tell me what you mean by better government; too many people seem to think their way is better but it just works out to be different."

...ooops, too late; gotta run.
hahahaha

I've got some ideas such as more oversight and more local connections, but this is a whole 'nother Topic too.
"Better" would also refer to intergovernmental cooperation.

I don't want 9 Billion people, but that was the number I heard somewhere [anyone?], when they projected into the future with current trends and expected advances, etc.
The point is that this (9B) was judged to be workable, with efficient management of resources.

meanwhile... for those still feeling shakey....

Look at a new parameter of CC effects; see the anthropogenic component clearly demonstrated:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...i-etal2002.pdf
"These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century."
-from: Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310

Note the "hockey stick" like shape of the graphs.

[Moontanman]

If indeed you could spread all those people out evenly it might work but not in Texas, nine billion people spread in Texas would mean 831 square feet per person. Yes I think you could still see each other. That would mean one person standing in a 28.82 feet on a side square. To become a type 1 civilization would require the use of the resources of the solar system. This is within our grasp now. It might take 500 years to exploit it all but even a type on civilization has to start somewhere. You can't wait until you are a type one to start doing it.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

If indeed you could spread all those people out evenly it might work but not in Texas, nine billion people spread in Texas would mean 831 square feet per person. Yes I think you could still see each other. That would mean one person standing in a 28.82 feet on a side square. To become a type 1 civilization would require the use of the resources of the solar system. This is within our grasp now. It might take 500 years to exploit it all but even a type on civilization has to start somewhere. You can't wait until you are a type one to start doing it.

I wasn't suggesting we all move to Texas and try to make it work; it was just an example of how "crowded" the Earth really is (or isn't). Thanks for doing the math though.

Sounds as if we're both advocating a push forward to becomming Type 1; maybe it's just the goal or motive behind the push that is different?

~brb

But more on Topic....

What did you think of the "hockey stick?"

[Moontanman]

[QUOTE=Essay;214624]I wasn't suggesting we all move to Texas and try to make it work; it was just an example of how "crowded" the Earth really is (or isn't). Thanks for doing the math though.

Sounds as if we're both advocating a push forward to becomming Type 1; maybe it's just the goal or motive behind the push that is different?

~brb

But more on Topic....

You missed my point, the nine billion would fit in Texas for sure but how much of Texas is really suitable for humans? You would have to take away all the mountain sides and scrub deserts, all the unlivable areas. If you did that you would be quite crowed and still not have a means to obtain food. It works the same way on the earth. I am 53 years old. I can remember when the earth held about 4 billion or so people. Livable areas were much less crowed than they are today. Far more woodlands were empty. Now in the same area where I lived almost all the flat land is gone. Houses are every where. You have to travel more than a hundred miles just to approximate the same living conditions that were common when I was young. It's the same way on the Earth. People cannot live on every square inch of the earth. Huge areas are unlivable or taken by wildlife. Look at the countries like India, and China, everywhere you look you see over crowding. We need to reduce the population to about 1 billion to really have a chance at correcting the environmental problems we have. It's more correct to say how much land is necessary to support one human. I think you find that we are already very much over crowded and to say we could support nine billion is ludicrous. So how any square feet does it take to support a human? You have to ask how do you want to live, maybe in thousands of mile high towers? Or spread around the globe in impoverished ghettos? No, everyone wants decent life style. We don't have room for what we have for everyone to live at a level where poverty isn't the norm.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Essay

...They come close with this last suggestion, but NOBODY has mentioned
Sequestration in Soils! ...let alone Terra Preta.

allow me to repeat....


40-80 Billion Tonnes of Carbon (just in cropland soils) + even larger potential sequestration by restoring "the soils of degraded and desertified lands" would be enough to return CO2 to pre-industrial levels within a few decades.

Why isn't this solution being implemented?



**Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils: A Multi-purpose Environmental Strategy
Edited by:
Norman J. Rosenberg and Roberto C. Izaurralde
Reprinted from Climatic Change, Vol.51, no.1, 2001
Kluwer Academic Publishers
ISBN 0-7923-7149-6

...and this isn't the high-cost, high-tech "carbon capture" CO2 sequestration schemes that energy companies are researching.

It's very low cost, requiring mainly organization and a change in culture and behaviour.

Becoming Type 1....

How could 'they' be so right about so much complexity, and so wrong about such simplicity? Mmmm...5th grade science; terra preta soil in the Amazon basin has charcoal mixed in it that has remained for hundreds of years. An asteroid/comet impact over North American ~11,0000 years ago left a layer of charcoal from the resulting burned forests that we find today. How do we get coal?

I agree this is a reasonble method for sequestering some carbon, and I think the best chance of implementing it is distributed small scale operations. Everybody can feel good about throwing some charcoal in/on the garden or lawn, if for no other reason than to retain more moisture; no 'belief' in 'global warming' required.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Everybody can feel good about throwing some charcoal in/on the garden or lawn, if for no other reason than to retain more moisture; no 'belief' in 'global warming' required.

To what type of "belief" are you referring?

As I understand it, you are using this to somehow be deragatory toward people who accept the science behind climate change and it's relation to human activity, yet all it means is "a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."


For more on types of belief, the wiki gives a good overview:

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

To what type of "belief" are you referring?

As I understand it, you are using this to somehow be deragatory toward people who accept the science behind climate change and it's relation to human activity, yet all it means is "a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."


For more on types of belief, the wiki gives a good overview:

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There goes that word belief again, I think I'll eliminate from my vocabulary! All it does is cause trouble and confuse the issue.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I agree this is a reasonble method for sequestering some carbon, and I think the best chance of implementing it is distributed small scale operations. Everybody can feel good about throwing some charcoal in/on the garden or lawn, if for no other reason than to retain more moisture; no 'belief' in 'global warming' required.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

To what type of "belief" are you referring?

As I understand it, you are using this to somehow be deragatory toward people who accept the science behind climate change and it's relation to human activity, yet all it means is "a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."


For more on types of belief, the wiki gives a good overview:

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Moontanman

There goes that word belief again, I think I'll eliminate from my vocabulary! All it does is cause trouble and confuse the issue.

Indeed. Funny how religion so consistently screws things up.