[Quinny]

Unfortunately I think you're timescales are way out of synch!

[Lore]

These are questions that have long ago been kicked around here to infinitude. You obviously are not up to speed on the current research and from the sounds of it have only absorbed the information that suits your predilections.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')1) Is AGW harmful or beneficial? Is the additional CO2 stimulating plant and plankton growth that increases or decreases the food supply for humans?

[dissident]

The "debate" is mostly about subjects that have nothing to do with science. CO2 is a lab proven infrared absorber. Add more of it to the atmosphere and you get warming. Trivial, but the deniers think their brain-dead nitpicking at unrelated issues somehow disproves this. So, deniers, let's see which feedbacks are hiding the CO2 warming. I dare you to quantify them.

Just to preclude the usual inanity, CO2 increase implies more H2O in the air according to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. In fact, the amount of water increases exponentially with temperature. So there is quite a robust positive feedback to dumping 30 billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (totally overshadowing natural sources such as volcanoes). Yet magical cloud albedo has been MIA over the whole period of rapid global CO2 increase since 1950. If it was a real negative feedback it would have manifested itself already to some degree.

All we have is drivel from the deniers that the world has been cooling since 1998. These morons know nothing about ENSO and think that their inanity is profound and should be believed and not laughed at. Deniers have a slew of agendas ranging from nutbar regligious ones (e.g. the Cornwall alliance and its BS quoting of the Bible) to economic ones (some retarded CEO decided that short term profit is more important than the survival of humanity). These people reek of agenda. They do not engage in honest discussion of facts.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'A')GW is certainly REAL. When a mouse farts during a Force 5 storm, the fart is real. The question being, just how significant is that fart in the greater scheme of things?

[KaiserJeep]

There is far from concensus in the scientific community about AGW. You should properly regard the rantings of the IPCC with a great deal of skepticism, since they are a political organization engaged in promoting a particular point of view, and in suppressing opposition to that view. Which is the SAME EXACT PROBLEM as their frequent targets "Big Oil" and "Big Coal".

Nor is AGW the largest environmental problem we have. The huge problem that makes your stomach queasy and causes you to change the subject to AGW is human overpopulation - the root cause of AGW and all other problems with the environment. There simply are too many people to live in a sustainable fashion on this one small planet. Every day that passes with 7.3B people on Earth is another day of irreversible damage. Even if 95% of those humans vanished tomorrow, there would still remain the legacy of their existence in resources consumed, species rendered extinct, and multiple forms of environmental damage - possibly including some climate change.

It simply does no good to complain about something without offering a solution. The problem would be:


...that fully 4/5ths of the energy consumed on the planet is from burning fossil fuels, after decades of investment in renewable energy. Our civilization and technology depends upon fossil energy. Without fossil energy, most humans will shiver and starve in the dark.

For all your strident squalling about AGW, when the alternative is to die from lack of food and heat, we will never abandon fossil energy.

[dbruning]

In my opinion, you are 100% correct in the population being a primary problem (if not THE primary problem). It drives pretty much every problem we have.

I don't see anyone being too likely to advocate we murder roughly 7 billion people. I certainly wouldn't: the odds that myself, my friends, my family, and all whom I love would be killed is far too high. And that is completely ignoring the shear inhumanity, the monstrous evil, such an act would represent. No politician could even murmur such a thing to their constituency and possibly be re-elected. They would likely be committed instead.

So, we have the population we have. And it's growing every year. The problems also grow every year. The "farting mouse" gets larger every year.

There are other issues, such as the growing positive feedbacks (methane bubbling) that haven't been covered but let's ignore that.

On these points we agree.

However, I'm not convinced you nor your loved ones are going to fly away on a magic space ship to a new Eden. It's not technologically possible at the moment, and the advancement such things would require (if possible) needs FAR too much time to be able to save you.

So, in a world that is dealing with an ever growing stench of mouse fart, with the leaders unable/unwilling to do anything about the primary issue you identify as a population problem, and most likely being unable to simply abandon this world to start stinking up a pristine new one....

...what do you recommend? Cause I sure as hell don't see a way forward. If I did I'd be running for election.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dbruning', '
')
...what do you recommend? Cause I sure as hell don't see a way forward. If I did I'd be running for election.

[KaiserJeep]

The World is divided into "haves" and "have nots". In the USA, we have more "haves" than anywhere else.

In this case, "haves" have disposable income, sufficient to allow luxuries such as:

1) Living in cities where the transportation costs for food exceed the cost of the food itself. On average, we spend about 15 calories of oil and gas to put one calorie of food on the table. This is NOT SUSTAINABLE. After the oil crash, you will need to live within 50 miles of every food source you use.

Source: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-07-22/the-energy-cost-of-food

2) Most of us can afford private power vehicles today. The vehicles themselves may be affordable going forward, but the fuel will not. When I bought my 2003 Jeep Wrangler, I could fill it for $32 with fuel at $2/gal. Today it costs $65 to fill with fuel at $4/gal. At something like $200 per tank I will make it a hanger queen and just drive it on vacation. I hope to have one or more Electric Vehicles by then. FORGET about commuting to work unless you use mass transit or a bicycle. Mass transit will cost 10X what it costs today, you should be able to project whether you live a viable distance from work today.

3) Most of us can afford private homes and the energy to run them today. I hope to move far enough away from people that my trees remain my own, and do not disappear every fall as they do today in Greece, where the 2,400-year-old olive tree that Plato sat under was recently cut for firewood: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/01/17/platos-tree-cut-down-for-firewood-2/
But I will still own a woodlot!

4) Most of us eat too much today, even on the government dole. Diabetes and heart disease run rampant. When food costs 10X what it does today, most of us will be on some form of government handout, and the dietary diseases will back off. Those still working will pay incredibly high taxes, like nothing seen before, and will be mumbling Ebenezer Scrooge's comment about "...using starvation to reduce the surplus population..." Food will take more than 1/2 your income, with necessary transportation taking another 1/4th, and perhaps you have zero disposable income.

5) The entertainment of US politics will continue, with 3/4ths of the population voting themselves ever greater shares of the income of the remaining 1/4th. Think of it as having a family 3X as large as you support today, with perhaps just ONE wage earner left. You can pretty much understand your quality of life in those terms.

And the good news is: We are the wealthiest country on Earth and will survive the conditions above, as long as no other countries try to go to war to take a share. But the USA will be an armed encampment surrounded by starving people, and with real starvation in our own country. Everyone else will be worse off.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')
And the good news is: We are the wealthiest country on Earth and will survive the conditions above, as long as no other countries try to go to war to take a share. But the USA will be an armed encampment surrounded by starving people, and with real starvation in our own country. Everyone else will be worse off.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')
I should point out that we, the USA, have already gone to war to take more than our share. We are already the agressor that you mentioned as a threat to your good news scenario above.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')
I should point out that we, the USA, have already gone to war to take more than our share. We are already the agressor that you mentioned as a threat to your good news scenario above.

[SeaGypsy]

Trying to convince, maybe not, scoffing at a grown up claiming there is no advantage in owning the petrodollar printing press- perhaps.

[KaiserJeep]

If either one of you knows of a payoff in oil that the US got after any conflict newer than the Iranian revolution, then please link to the evidence.

Certainly we buy more oil than any other country, resulting in us getting a better price and better access to premium sweet crude. Hardly a "petrodollar printing press", just a free market.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'T')here is far from concensus in the scientific community about AGW. You should properly regard the rantings of the IPCC with a great deal of skepticism, since they are a political organization engaged in promoting a particular point of view, and in suppressing opposition to that view. Which is the SAME EXACT PROBLEM as their frequent targets "Big Oil" and "Big Coal".

[KaiserJeep]

Your arguments are skewed. The IPCC is a political organization because all you have to do to become a member is pay a membership fee, there are no other standards. The IPCC charter is completely public and discloses the intent of the organization which is to promote a viewpoint about AGW - now called "Climate Change". The IPCC and the similar organizations owned by energy companies are PACs - Political Action Committees - under US laws.

In the scientific publications, one finds anything but consensus - and the peer review process is confusing to virtually everyone who is not a practicing scientist, which is why the IPCC exists, to create a facade of consensus.

Consensus about Climate Change is meaningless in any case. At one time in history, the consensus said that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Another time the consensus was that an invisible "ether" permeated space and matter. In another time, the consensus said that "bad air" caused infections, because germs were not known. Scientific consensus is simply an organized way of being in agreement about things that are not true.

Now I want you to STEP AWAY FROM YOUR SO EVIDENTLY STRONGLY HELD CONVICTIONS, and THINK about what I am about to say. It truly is irrelevant whether or not mankind is warming the planet or altering the climate. If we can adapt to and survive an Ice Age, we can adapt to feeble AGW.

80% - 4/5th's of all the energy needed for the 7.3B humans to survive, comes from burning fossil fuels. If you advocate that we stop doing so, you are advocating human genocide on a scale unprecedented in history. That is the simple truth.

Are you in fact advocating that we allow the greater part of 7.3B humans to perish? Are you a greater villain than Adolf Hitler, Ghengis Kahn, Vladimir Lenin, or Saddam Hussein? Are you trying to best the number of people they killed?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'Y')our arguments are skewed. The IPCC is a political organization because all you have to do to become a member is pay a membership fee, there are no other standards. The IPCC charter is completely public and discloses the intent of the organization which is to promote a viewpoint about AGW - now called "Climate Change". The IPCC and the similar organizations owned by energy companies are PACs - Political Action Committees - under US laws.

[KaiserJeep]

There really is not a massive conspiracy to consume oil and coal. The demand for energy is increasing so rapidly due to population increases, that every form of energy production, including both fossil fuels and renewable energy, is being exploited. We still have an energy shortage after all that, but because the fossil fuels are cheapest, fossil energy is growing faster and the mix of sources is changing to MORE fossil fuels and LESS renewable energy. It is basic supply and demand economics, which dominates all other economic theories.

It does not matter how many scientists join the IPCC - and certainly the number in traditional political parties dwarfs any membership in PACs such as the IPCC. It is all about politics. The actual intent of the IPCC is to create a "climate of fear" (pun intended) where a politician can spend more of your money that you can. Creating a fantasy about the end of the world, then promising that a politician or political party will save you, is a means to an end.

Now please note that in spite of all the rhetoric, they are NOT using your money to help save the planet, they are enriching themselves. The final stage of maturity is when one stops listening to what politicians SAY and note the acute differences between what they SAY and what they actually DO. Are you ready to become an adult, or do you want to continue to live in your fantasy world? Many people are not in fact capable of taking the final step, they have to believe in a greater cause. They will continue to give money, time, and effort to a cause, a religion, or an organization for the balance of their life, most never realizing that in many cases they are working in opposition to their devoutly held beliefs.

Including even YOU, I am certain. I mean, are you saving the planet, or are you continuing to consume electricity, gasoline, plastics, and the various petrochemical products while piously talking about AGW and Climate Change?

Why don't you join the IPCC, that might make you feel better. Note that all it takes is writing them a check and filling out the form that gets you on the mailing list. Note that you don't have to be a "scientist", all you have to do is cough up the cash. Think about it.