My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

....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.
....
We don't have room for what we have for everyone to live at a level where poverty isn't the norm.

I'll have to look for some support on this, but I still maintain:
"I don't want 9 Billion people, but that was the number I heard somewhere [anyone else know?], when they projected into the future with current trends and expected advances, etc.
The point is that this (9B) was judged to be workable [above poverty level], with efficient management of resources." -#353

My feeling is that we will find progress increasingly difficult if we continue with business as usual (BAU).

I'm sorry to have brought up that vague Texas analogy. Of course you're right about the arable land, etc.
It seems to me that you want to achieve Type 1 status (through BAU?) in order to leave our increasingly untenable niche; whereas I'm pushing for restoring the niche in order to secure Type 1 status.

I don't think just achieving space travel would qualify a civilization as Type 1.
Wouldn't it be too difficult to support an interplanetary fleet without a bountiful homebase?
I think Kaku suggests a civilization would need to master many of the planetary forces (and successfully manage them) before qualifying as Type 1. This would then also allow for space travel.

[Essay]

"There goes that word belief again, I think I'll eliminate from my vocabulary! All it does is cause trouble and confuse the issue." -MTM
I think we are forced to express ourselves more clearly when we avoid that word.

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....

...and it doesn't even have to be the TP thing. Just changing ag. practices, to keep the soil healthier (no till, organic, etc.) will get the numbers that the IPCC was talking about.
If we did the TP thing on marginal, non-ag. soils [Forestry & Range Management], it'd probably double what the farmers could do alone.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Essay

I'll have to look for some support on this, but I still maintain:
"I don't want 9 Billion people, but that was the number I heard somewhere [anyone else know?], when they projected into the future with current trends and expected advances, etc.
The point is that this (9B) was judged to be workable [above poverty level], with efficient management of resources." -#353

My feeling is that we will find progress increasingly difficult if we continue with business as usual (BAU).

I'm sorry to have brought up that vague Texas analogy. Of course you're right about the arable land, etc.
It seems to me that you want to achieve Type 1 status (through BAU?) in order to leave our increasingly untenable niche; whereas I'm pushing for restoring the niche in order to secure Type 1 status.

I don't think just achieving space travel would qualify a civilization as Type 1.
Wouldn't it be too difficult to support an interplanetary fleet without a bountiful homebase?
I think Kaku suggests a civilization would need to master many of the planetary forces (and successfully manage them) before qualifying as Type 1. This would then also allow for space travel.

If we stay on the earth conditions will continue to get worse. We are slowly destroying the ecosystem by developing land that the ecosystem needs to stay wild. We are also creating a mass extiction of the scope of the extiction that wiped out the dinosaurs.

I agree that space travel isn't enough to qualify us as type one, space travel is the first step. type one staus cannot be achieved from a planet bound species. One thing is for certian, with out developing space travel we will never leave this planet and we will go down with the ship. As things continue to get worse, and all we can really do is slow down the decline. At some point we will not be able to mount anything like a space program, all our resouces will go toward slowing the decline of the Earths environment. After that we will simply drown in our own problems and die out. A few million years later the earth will recover but we will be gone.

[InfiniteNow]

This is a great discussion, guys. I hope you continue it.


Maybe a moderator can split these off into their own thread, though, since this one is about GW?


In the meantime, carry on here to make sure the posts all stay together. Type I civilization? Space? Mass extinction? Population density? Right on, good stuff!

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Essay

"There goes that word belief again, I think I'll eliminate from my vocabulary! All it does is cause trouble and confuse the issue." -MTM
I think we are forced to express ourselves more clearly when we avoid that word.

Since 'that word' is the premise of the thread, I believe I used it appropriately to the context.

Originally Posted by Essay

...and it doesn't even have to be the TP thing. Just changing ag. practices, to keep the soil healthier (no till, organic, etc.) will get the numbers that the IPCC was talking about.
If we did the TP thing on marginal, non-ag. soils [Forestry & Range Management], it'd probably double what the farmers could do alone.

I have been wondering just how much charcoal is still hanging out in forests from fires. Should we gather it, or leave it be?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Maybe a moderator can split these off into their own thread, though, since this one is about GW?

Bump...
(unfortunately, this is out of my jurisdiction for such actions)

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Turtle

...
Since 'that word' is the premise of the thread, I believe I used it appropriately to the context.
...
I have been wondering just how much charcoal is still hanging out in forests from fires. Should we gather it, or leave it be?

LOL Turtle, you are entirely correct about the title.
...
I've been wondering if we should pre-emptively gather all some of the trees killed by GW (pine beetles) to help manage the coming decades of mass forest fires.
I think there'll be enough charcoal to go around (remaining in the mountains, and harvested).

...but still, this is "off-topic."

meanwhile... for those still feeling shaky, any comment on this below, as an independent verification of GW?

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.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Essay

LOL Turtle, you are entirely correct about the title.
...
I've been wondering if we should pre-emptively gather all some of the trees killed by GW (pine beetles) to help manage the coming decades of mass forest fires.
I think there'll be enough charcoal to go around (remaining in the mountains, and harvested).

I put belief in single quotes, {'belief'}, to indicate an acknowledgment of the varying definitions and philosophical debates on the definition & use of the word.

Yes, let's go out & pick up a bunch of the dead wood to use & reduce the fuel load for future fires! Seems a no-brainer to me.

Originally Posted by Essay

meanwhile... for those still feeling shaky, any comment on this below, as an independent verification of GW?

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.

Mmmm...I don't see a graph, because the link goes somewhere else!? But, I found this bit the link does lead to contains elements of my earlier skeptical comments on the modeling.

Originally Posted by Roger Pielke

Now, from an unlikely source (Real Climate) have come the statements

“A scenario only illustrates the climatic effect of the specified forcing - this is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast. To be sure, the first IPCC report did talk about “prediction” - in many respects the first report was not nearly as sophisticated as the more recent ones, including in its terminology. “

“One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast - I cannot easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I cannot easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.”

Real Climate states that the scenarios can

“….. become obsolete, and….. cannot be verified or falsified by observed data, because the observed data have become dominated by other effects not included in the scenario.” ...

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News

[InfiniteNow]

[Essay]

Sorry I'm such an idiot. No wonder nobody....
Here is the link:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...i-etal2002.pdf

-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

...and WOW InfiniteNow, --great Graph. The turquoise "borehole" line shows what this paper indicates. ...Thanks....