SPCR

Hello,

I think that the Nobel committee got it right.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nat ... hange.html

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/vi ... -community

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/200 ... crops.html

It's not just increased wild fires, or more frequent and more intense floods & storms, higher food and fuel costs -- it's also riots over food prices, economic basket cases like Zimbabwe, Somalia, Congo, and Myanmar...soon to be joined by Bangladesh, etc. About 10% of that densely populated country will be lost with just a 3 foot rise of the oceans.

It's struggles over water -- both too little and too much of it. Russia recently has planted it's flag on the floor of the Arctic ocean -- will territorial conflicts spring up because of melting ice?

Its intrestting classfied: Security threat. Now American government really have to think what they can do, since they cannot throw Global Warming into Gitmo and forget it there like they do most security threats.

However question lies: Is there anything anymore that we can do? Or have we gone already passed point of no return...

There are more things we can do, but we have to realize that global warming and cooling is also a natural occurance, not just a human one. As a consequence, even if we revert back to nomadic-style living (something I don't think anyone would want) the climate will still change.

The highest spike in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in over the history of the planet was something like 4 times the current rates. This spike was pre-historic.

So yes, we ought not to accelerate the process, but we should not believe that we can control the climate. We need to find the point that is feasible without destroying civilization, and at that point instead of preventative measures, we need to start preparing for the inevitable climate change.

Maybe we can sink trillions into creating food from oil and that could solve our hunger problem while reducing our carbon footprint from burning the stuff.

When all is said and done, the only long term solution to most any problem in the world is fewer monkeys in the cage.

Until then, anything done in the name of prevention of ______ is just jerking off.

autoboy wrote:Maybe we can sink trillions into creating food from oil and that could solve our hunger problem while reducing our carbon footprint from burning the stuff.

you can think of the modern food supply chain as turning oil into food. fertilisers, pesticides, etc are almost always derived from petrochemicals, plus the diesel/gas used to power combine harvesters/tractors etc. so a large part of the current spike in food prices is caused by the spike in the oil price.

NB. although obviously tongue-in-cheek, this proposal wouldn't actually reduce our carbon footprint, as you are still extracting long sequestered hydrocarbons and turning them into CO2 (via respiration).

If only we could harvest all the politicians hot air we could not only decrease greenhouse gases by a whopping 80% but reduce the reliance on oil and gas by 95%!

I have said the same as Fri2219's comment a few times, we need less people in this world burning fosil fuels for energy.

If every single human on this planet started using 20% less energy today, we would still be burning energy at the current rate in ~11 years time due to population increases.

If you actually believe that every person on earth will be using 20% less energy in 11 years time then you are a fool, chances are that the actual energy use will increase per person in that time, as fosil fuels will still be the cheapest option for the poor, and the poorest will be rich enough to afford those fosil fuels.

So is burning less oil actually going to make a big difference in the long term, the answer is no. Human population is currently the biggest factor, followed by human uptake on (cheap) fosil fuels.

Consider (ignoring morals) the cost of food going up by 50%, and the sea level rising by 3ft, could actually be a good thing as far as our planet is concerned, fewer people means a greener planet.


Andy

If you think things are bad now wait until there are water shortages.

Uh, that would mean drinkable water Autoboy, not the kind with crude oil floating on it.

NyteOwl wrote:If only we could harvest all the politicians hot air we could not only decrease greenhouse gases by a whopping 80% but reduce the reliance on oil and gas by 95%!

Winner! (But even just getting rid of Cheney will be helpful.)

That is pretty much the lamest cartoon I have ever seen. Wow, are you serious? Your hatred for all things Bush has clouded any rational judgment you may have had. This is the last statement I will make to you because, while I really enjoy talking about different points of view, I do not discuss anything with non-rational people.

Water shortages? There are already water shortages! There have always been water shortages and is why historically people have lived near sources of water. Every climate fluctuates and changes.

Global warming IS a theory. Just like the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of gravity. Those theories, just like the theory of man made global warming are subject to the same criticisms that theories are rightfully subject to. It should absolutely be discussed, tested, and proven but it should never be stated as fact.

andyb wrote:Consider (ignoring morals) the cost of food going up by 50%, and the sea level rising by 3ft, could actually be a good thing as far as our planet is concerned, fewer people means a greener planet.

OMG!1!! How could you say that?! You have to think of the children, and the kittens and puppies!

Kidding. I am actually in agreement with you there. One small problem though is that rotting vegetation (e.g. the recently-submerged kind) produces lots of methane. This is considered to be a major problem as more and bigger hydroelectric facilities come online. Can't remember the figures, but the methane output is reported to be huge already.

I would be more afraid of another ice age. Rising sea levels are slow and only inundate property that is easily rebuilt. It does not kill.

Last I checked we don't have fur. Cold kills more than heat. I'm not really wanting to live on top of a mile and a half of ice covering New York City.

andyb wrote:If you actually believe that every person on earth will be using 20% less energy in 11 years time then you are a fool, chances are that the actual energy use will increase per person in that time, as fosil fuels will still be the cheapest option for the poor, and the poorest will be rich enough to afford those fosil fuels.

So is burning less oil actually going to make a big difference in the long term, the answer is no. Human population is currently the biggest factor, followed by human uptake on (cheap) fosil fuels.

The reason why the average energy per person will increase will probably mostly come from increasing economies like India and China, until they reach the energy consumption of a typical "Western" person.
If every person on Earth would consume the same energy as an average European/American (for example) person, we will be in a lot of trouble.
Add to that, an increase of human population on Earth over the years, it might turn out to be exponential for a decade or two until it flattens out.

The average energy consumption per person is held down by underdeveloped countries - once they catch up, the average energy consumption will ofcourse increase drasticly.

autoboy wrote:I would be more afraid of another ice age. Rising sea levels are slow and only inundate property that is easily rebuilt. It does not kill.

The thread is called global climate change for a reason. Hot temperatures in one place don't exclude cold temperatures in another.
There is no telling if, locally, temperatures will rise or decrease.
Also, inundate property can make for a lot of victims. The Netherlands e.g. are for 50% below sea level. Once the water comes above the dykes, large parts will flood (1953).

The reason why the average energy per person will increase will probably mostly come from increasing economies like India and China, until they reach the energy consumption of a typical "Western" person.
If every person on Earth would consume the same energy as an average European/American (for example) person, we will be in a lot of trouble.
Add to that, an increase of human population on Earth over the years, it might turn out to be exponential for a decade or two until it flattens out.

The average energy consumption per person is held down by underdeveloped countries - once they catch up, the average energy consumption will ofcourse increase drasticly.

Didnt I say that, just using different words

My point was more aimed at the fact that the worlds population is going to become the greatest threat to our planet because is increasing so rapidly, and no matter what the rich industrialised countries do with becoming greener, it wont make any difference at all given a decade or so.

So the next BIG question is going to be how do we stem the worlds human populous and at what level, I would guess that in 11 Years time the planet will be suffering just as much as the worlds 8 Billion would be.

Our planet is showing signs of weakness with 6.7 Billion people and what we are doing to mother earth, what will 8, 10, or 12 Billion people do to our planet.

Global warming from burning fosil fuels will be a pathetic excuse compared to a lack of carbon dioxide eating / oxygen giving plant matter that has all be turned into crops to feed the mass over population of our planet - sustainability is of key importance, and I will repeat the message in my last post.

Will the death of 200,000,000 people due to starvation because they cant afford to buy food or manage to grow food actually be a bad thing in the longer term.? What about the loss of a Billion people, lets say a massive deadly Influenza breakaout.?

As twisted as that question sounds, it could happen in the next few years, and that will help slow down the massive human population explosion that we have seen in the last 50 years - 1950's world population guesstimate 2.5 Billion.


Andy

I totally agree that over-population is the planet's biggest problem. But I also am firmly convinced there is nothing we can do about it. If the whole world was run under a single dictator like China, he could reverse the population trends, by harsh methods......that nobody would find enjoyable. But it's not......and as long preachers encourage reproduction, the act of reproduction remains enjoyable and legal, the state governments continue to support unregulated reproduction, our population will continue to increase.

Eventually disease, starvation, and wars will reverse population growth.....for a while. But the process will continue to cycle up/down without an end in sight. Climate change works in the same way......it changes without any input from humans needed.

Governments have already started the mass killings. It is veiled under the "green" umbrella and is called Biofuel.

Well, not all biofuels have an affect on the food supply. Ethanol from corn certainly has an effect -- but algae and methane digesters and jatropha, and even methanol from willow trees would not. As long as these were produced on marginal crop land.

autoboy wrote:Governments have already started the mass killings. It is veiled under the "green" umbrella and is called Biofuel.

see my response to similar claims of yours in Green Computing. given your earlier insistence on conversing only with "rational" people, claims like this do not cast your own rationality in a very favourable light.

Governments have already started the mass killings. It is veiled under the "green" umbrella and is called Biofuel.

Dont you mean that: Green Evangelists, Governments, oil producers, oil product users, oil speculators, stock market traders, and farmers have contributed..... To blame "just" governments is rather unfair on their already pitiful souls.

Although if this did happen, the ironic side effect of trying to be "eco-friendly" and "green" could mean that millions of people die. Which as far as I am concerned is essentially the same as a man-made drought.


Andy

Hello,

Are you blaming corn-made ethanol for the food shortages? I think the droughts and floods have something to do with it, too. And soil erosion due to deforestation...

autoboy wrote:Last I checked we don't have fur. Cold kills more than heat. I'm not really wanting to live on top of a mile and a half of ice covering New York City.

Living in a climate that allows me to experience both, let me assure you that in the long term, cold is better than hot. We don't have fur, but we can put on clothes, and once it gets uncomfortably hot, you can't take off your skin.

jaganath wrote:

autoboy wrote:Governments have already started the mass killings. It is veiled under the "green" umbrella and is called Biofuel.

see my response to similar claims of yours in Green Computing. given your earlier insistence on conversing only with "rational" people, claims like this do not cast your own rationality in a very favourable light.

Yes, we know, but that doesn't stop him.

Seems to be a pattern with them.

Yes I like the Constitution, logic, and ethics more than Bush. Sue me.

You think my comments are lame? Here's the dictionary definition of lame:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 42498.html

Global warming IS a theory. Just like the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of gravity.

Then you won't mind walking off a cliff, will you?

Then you won't mind walking off a cliff, will you?

I've done it before. It can be a ton of fun but make sure you bring a parachute.

Are you blaming corn-made ethanol for the food shortages? I think the droughts and floods have something to do with it, too.

Droughts and floods are not preventable. Bad government policies are.

There are many contributors to the biofuel craze. Government sponsorship is a major part of it.

I look forward to fuels made from algae but fuels from food is not a good solution.

see my response to similar claims of yours in Green Computing. given your earlier insistence on conversing only with "rational" people, claims like this do not cast your own rationality in a very favourable light.

What is irrational about blaming government mandates to use corn based ethanol a mass killing of the poor? Millions of people are starving. That is a fact. Not a theory. The high demand for ethanol is driving the price up. Fact not theory. Are there other contributors? Sure, but this one is easily preventable if we make enough noise.

We could import cheap sugar based ethanol into the country, but the government won't allow it.

Who's fault is that?

How many land owners are still being paid to not plant at all?

Who's fault is that?

Lame is believing what a lobbyist funded politician has to say.

You'll excuse me now, I have to go make out another check to Halliburton.

autoboy......from what I've read on the subject, much/most of the corn used for ethanol production is what they call "field corn". It would normally be used for cattle feed, and such. It is never used for human consumption in this country anyway. It's grown on land unsuitable for growing corn you can actually eat.

Try eating an ear of field corn sometime..... it looks the same, but tastes terrible. I tried it once as a kid.

The greatest climate-caused security threat North America ever faced.....when there was a frozen bridge connecting Asia to Alaska. North America was then invaded by foot soldiers who set up tents and pretended they owned the place. Cause...Global Cooling. Maybe Gore should write another lame book....

Government subsidies for ethanol result in more field corn being cultivated instead of food crops.

Avalanche wrote:Government subsidies for ethanol result in more field corn being cultivated instead of food crops.

Oh, that's just a theory.

Avalanche..... farmers in the USA are not in business to solve the world's food shortage problem. Like almost everyone else, they're in business to make money, to survive. If they own marginal land that cannot grow crops like edible corn, they'll grow whatever they think will bring the highest monitory return.

I don't think field corn, even with subsidies, is more profitable than normal corn. But the market prices are so volatile these days, it's difficult for a farmer to stay in business at all, much less to know exactly what to plant any one year.

But we still live in a democracy.....a farmer can still plant most anything he wants. The government can give him incentives(along with rules) to plant certain things. That's about it.



You think you're going to tell these guys what to grow, and how to do it?

One that used to have a Constitution, and abided by it.