Print Page | Close Window

Atmospheric CO2 Hits High Milestone

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Discription: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=93451
Printed Date: July 30 2014 at 10:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Atmospheric CO2 Hits High Milestone
Posted By: FLAC
Subject: Atmospheric CO2 Hits High Milestone
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 14:11
dioxide surpassed a notable milestone this week. 

They reached a daily average above 400 parts per million, reported NOAA, for the first time in human history.

The milestone, hit on May 9, may be symbolic, notes Climate Central, but manmade CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels continue to rise, bringing greater atmospheric warming and exacerbating the effects of climate change. 

Scientists argue we've loaded the "climate dice" in favor of more weather anomalies and extreme heat waves.

Research also shows that continued emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide will mean "largely irreversible" climate change for 1,000 years even after we curtail emissions.

"The last time we're confident that CO2 was sustained at these levels is more than 10 million years ago, during the middle of the Miocene period," climate scientist Michael Mann told The Huffington Post in an email. "This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/atmospheric-co2-concentrations_n_3253757.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/atmospheric-co2-concentrations_n_3253757.html

Some links from Green Peace:

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/04/22/7-reasons-the-environmental-movement-is-winning/" rel="nofollow - http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/04/22/7-reasons-the-environmental-movement-is-winning/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/energyrevolution/Tweet-the-Energy-Revolution/" rel="nofollow - http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/energyrevolution/Tweet-the-Energy-Revolution/








Replies:
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 14:24
While I strongly support environmental issues, there is also one problem which is not so easy to deal with.  And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it.  And that number keeps growing at a geometric rate.  Overpopulation of the planet is the biggest environmental disaster and while there may not be much we can do about it, it won't be too long I fear before mother nature does something about it with environmental disasters, plague, famine and so forth to bring the human population back into balance with nature. 

I'm reminded of the early Floyd lyric "And if you survive to 2005, I hope you're exceedingly thin, for if you are stout, you will have to breathe out, while the people around you breathe in".


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 14:31
Originally posted by The Doctor

And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it.


You need to re-think that statement. There are a lot more than 7 billion organisms on Earth. It's what people do that causes issues.


-------------
Hail Eris!


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 14:35
Originally posted by Gamemako

Originally posted by The Doctor

And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it.


You need to re-think that statement. There are a lot more than 7 billion organisms on Earth. It's what people do that causes issues.


You mean like breathing?  Wink  I'm not discounting the factories, cars, etc, but breathing alone pumps a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  Not to mention that we use up resources faster than the rest of the organisms on the planet combined.  The planet may be able to support trillions of organisms, but not 7+ billion people.  I stand by my original statement.


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 14:41
I agree with The Doc that his statement is correct. The planet can support billions of billions of living organisms but not of humans all of who bevave quite parasitically.

-------------


Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 14:45
^ amen, totally agree, this and our affluent way of life

-------------
"Prog Heavy Petting" show - every Monday 7-9pm UK time on http://www.justincaseradio.com" rel="nofollow - http://www.justincaseradio.com , the first progressive radio in Greece


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 14:57
I blame the plants.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 15:17
^They are already being executed as we speak.

-------------


Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 15:32
Originally posted by The Doctor

You mean like breathing?  Wink  I'm not discounting the factories, cars, etc, but breathing alone pumps a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.


Total nonsense. You can only produce as much CO2 as carbon in the food you eat. For you to exhale CO2, CO2 must have already been removed from the air.

Originally posted by The Doctor

Not to mention that we use up resources faster than the rest of the organisms on the planet combined.


It is our use of natural resources that is the difference. The planet can support plenty of people, it just can't support us.


-------------
Hail Eris!


Posted By: FLAC
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 15:34
Originally posted by The Doctor

While I strongly support environmental issues, there is also one problem which is not so easy to deal with.  And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it.  And that number keeps growing at a geometric rate.  Overpopulation of the planet is the biggest environmental disaster and while there may not be much we can do about it, it won't be too long I fear before mother nature does something about it with environmental disasters, plague, famine and so forth to bring the human population back into balance with nature. 

I'm reminded of the early Floyd lyric "And if you survive to 2005, I hope you're exceedingly thin, for if you are stout, you will have to breathe out, while the people around you breathe in".

I agree but what can we do? Should we start adopting Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas. Sleepy


Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 15:38
Originally posted by FLAC

I agree but what can we do? Should we start adopting Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas. Sleepy


It's Malthus Time. LOL


-------------
Hail Eris!


Posted By: FLAC
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 15:45
Originally posted by Gamemako

Originally posted by FLAC

I agree but what can we do? Should we start adopting Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas. Sleepy


It's Malthus Time. LOL

yea but that so called "philosophy" worked in the middle ages,where everyone died off plague,and they needed to have as much kids as possible (god's will)

but still religion is to blame (mostly) because if it wasn't for that primitive  fairy tails women would be free to get abortions use pills to prevent pregnancy and man could use plastic bags for their ding dong. This would decrees the numbers a bit if everyone used it 


Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 15:51
Originally posted by FLAC

yea but that so called "philosophy" worked in the middle ages,where everyone died off plague,and they needed to have as much kids as possible (god's will)


[tube]3oHqbuBSH6E[/tube]


-------------
Hail Eris!


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 15:51
Originally posted by FLAC

Originally posted by Gamemako

Originally posted by FLAC

I agree but what can we do? Should we start adopting Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas. Sleepy


It's Malthus Time. LOL

yea but that so called "philosophy" worked in the middle ages,where everyone died off plague,and they needed to have as much kids as possible (god's will)

but still religion is to blame (mostly) because if it wasn't for that primitive  fairy tails women would be free to get abortions use pills to prevent pregnancy and man could use plastic bags for their ding dong. This would decrees the numbers a bit if everyone used it 


This is happening.  Reproduction in most of the developed world is not meeting the replacement rate.


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 15:55
Originally posted by The Doctor

While I strongly support environmental issues, there is also one problem which is not so easy to deal with.  And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it. 


How many humans was it meant to support?  I'm not sure what that means, anyway - it sounds like the earth was designed and somehow we've exceeded specifications.

If your number is quite a bit smaller, and you think that is truly the solution, how do you solve this problem without resorting to rather drastic measures?


Posted By: FLAC
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 16:05
Originally posted by Gamemako

Originally posted by FLAC

yea but that so called "philosophy" worked in the middle ag
es,where everyone died off plague,and they needed to have as much kids as possible (god's will)


[tube]3oHqbuBSH6E[/tube]

i know it was an joke. I just like to replay to posts don't know why

Well yea third worlds that is the biggest  problem,keeping an controlled population maybe all the third worlds should follow China? Like one child per family?


Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 18:33
Originally posted by FLAC

i know it was an joke. I just like to replay to posts don't know why

Well yea third worlds that is the biggest  problem,keeping an controlled population maybe all the third worlds should follow China? Like one child per family?


I'm not sure you understand the joke or why it applies to this...

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/climatechange/shares/" rel="nofollow - All developing countries, comprising 80% of the world population, produce as much CO2 in total as high-income OECD countries, which comprise 15% of the world's population . It's not them, it's us.


-------------
Hail Eris!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 18:50
What the hell are the other 5% doing?

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 18:59
Originally posted by Dean

What the hell are the other 5% doing?


The other 6.861% of the population has the remaining 15.671% of the CO2 share, obviously. Tongue


-------------
Hail Eris!


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 21:03
Originally posted by The Doctor

Originally posted by Gamemako

Originally posted by The Doctor

And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it.


You need to re-think that statement. There are a lot more than 7 billion organisms on Earth. It's what people do that causes issues.


You mean like breathing?  Wink  I'm not discounting the factories, cars, etc, but breathing alone pumps a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  Not to mention that we use up resources faster than the rest of the organisms on the planet combined.  The planet may be able to support trillions of organisms, but not 7+ billion people.  I stand by my original statement.


Sure it can. It's just not quite made to be assaulted by human.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2013 at 21:17
Dear Kim, please attack South Korea. Make sure you use your sorry ass nukes. Make sure you make the Chinese get very upset and try to somehow make the Russians go along with you. We need a full thermonuclear war quickly to get rid of ourselves and save the planet. We suck too much. Save us, Kim.

-------------


Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: May 12 2013 at 21:30
Originally posted by The T

Dear Kim, please attack South Korea. Make sure you use your sorry ass nukes. Make sure you make the Chinese get very upset and try to somehow make the Russians go along with you. We need a full thermonuclear war quickly to get rid of ourselves and save the planet. We suck too much. Save us, Kim.

If you address him as Dear Leader, maybe our Dear Leader will be tempted to listen to your wise advice!


-------------


Zizou 1988-2006


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: May 12 2013 at 22:10
Originally posted by Padraic

Originally posted by The Doctor

While I strongly support environmental issues, there is also one problem which is not so easy to deal with.  And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it. 


How many humans was it meant to support?  I'm not sure what that means, anyway - it sounds like the earth was designed and somehow we've exceeded specifications.

If your number is quite a bit smaller, and you think that is truly the solution, how do you solve this problem without resorting to rather drastic measures?


It was meant to support me and 20 of my closest friends, all of which are coincidentally, female and hot.  Tongue

As I said it is not an easy problem to deal with.  The best way is to not only support contraception, but advocate it (which will take the cooperation of lots of religious organizations), distribute it freely (not just condoms, but the pill) and also fully support abortion rights.  Other than that there isn't much we can do that isn't drastic, except wait for nature to take her course. 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 07:11
I find it slightly curious that limiting the human population is the first measure you talk about.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 07:29
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

I find it slightly curious that limiting the human population is the first measure you talk about.


From a certain point of view, it can be a good idea, but only on a long term, at least one generation. And waiting 20 or 30 years for limiting the number of drivers, gas users, factory operators... and, therefore, the amount of COČ produced... Well, good luck!
If we're looking for a "quick" solution (if there's a quick solution... Ermm), the first drastic measure one could think about would be to limit the number of cars (or bikes, or buses, etc...), the use of coal and oil as sources of energy, etc...
And I'm not sure it could be done in a dozen years.


-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 08:09
Or we could plant trees.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 10:11
Originally posted by The Doctor

Originally posted by Padraic

Originally posted by The Doctor

While I strongly support environmental issues, there is also one problem which is not so easy to deal with.  And that is the fact that this planet was not meant to support 7+ billion humans on it. 


How many humans was it meant to support?  I'm not sure what that means, anyway - it sounds like the earth was designed and somehow we've exceeded specifications.

If your number is quite a bit smaller, and you think that is truly the solution, how do you solve this problem without resorting to rather drastic measures?


It was meant to support me and 20 of my closest friends, all of which are coincidentally, female and hot.  Tongue

As I said it is not an easy problem to deal with.  The best way is to not only support contraception, but advocate it (which will take the cooperation of lots of religious organizations), distribute it freely (not just condoms, but the pill) and also fully support abortion rights.  Other than that there isn't much we can do that isn't drastic, except wait for nature to take her course. 

As I said, we're doing all of this now.  The birth rate in 2011 for the United States was an all-time low.


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 11:23
Timely!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/13/why-are-birthrates-falling-around-the-world-in-a-word-television/" rel="nofollow - Why are birthrates falling all over the world?  Blame television.


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 11:35
Originally posted by Padraic

Timely!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/13/why-are-birthrates-falling-around-the-world-in-a-word-television/" rel="nofollow - Why are birthrates falling all over the world?  Blame television.


"Blame television"? Why not... but it sounds a bit harsh. Ermm

And if people start using trains rather than individual cars, leading to the (probable) disappearance of trafic jams and/or fogs, could we blame video games like Train Simulator 2013? Clown


-------------


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 13:38
This would be something to look forward to..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRFsoRQYpFM" rel="nofollow - Planned-opolis.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 21:05
Originally posted by Dean

Or we could plant trees.


Thanks. I was beginning to think I was crazy or something for thinking this.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 21:22
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Originally posted by Dean

Or we could plant trees.


Thanks. I was beginning to think I was crazy or something for thinking this.


Well... http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/5-green-myths5.htm" rel="nofollow - sort-of . You certainly can't stop global warming that way, unfortunately.


-------------
Hail Eris!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 01:33
Originally posted by Gamemako

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

Originally posted by Dean

Or we could plant trees.


Thanks. I was beginning to think I was crazy or something for thinking this.


Well... http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/5-green-myths5.htm" rel="nofollow - sort-of . You certainly can't stop global warming that way, unfortunately.
Before man over-ran the planet much of Europe was forest, as was North America and China, temperatures were not 5.5°C warmer so there is no certainty in the study, their model is perhaps a little too simplistic. Trees are not the only plants that sequesters carbon, they all do - the trick is not to release it out again..

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 00:36
A couple million people will have to die, probably in the US, for our lawmakers to finally think the human toll is outweighing the hit to industry that CO2 limits will incur. Then it will be a bit too late, of course.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 09:51
You don't hear too much about this, but UN Agenda 21 which was kicked off in 1992, is a programme of structured sustainable development, implemented locally at the national level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21" rel="nofollow - UN Agenda 21 - Wiki

It is however non binding, and rather vague overall, unless the plan is to enforce this initiative at some point. I don't know how they would do that in the face of mass opposition.



-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 10:00
make more coral reefs

-------------
Yonder Yonder Yonder Yonder Yonder Yonder


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 10:32
Ermm 
CaČ + 2HCO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + CO2
I see a potential flaw in this plan


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 11:22
Originally posted by stonebeard

A couple million people will have to die, probably in the US, for our lawmakers to finally think the human toll is outweighing the hit to industry that CO2 limits will incur. Then it will be a bit too late, of course.


Huh, couldn't we rather, like, promote contraception, instead of mass murder (if I understood the idea of this post)? Confused
Or, even better, to shut down factories, no matter how high the rate of unemployment would rise?


-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 11:31
Originally posted by CPicard

Originally posted by stonebeard

A couple million people will have to die, probably in the US, for our lawmakers to finally think the human toll is outweighing the hit to industry that CO2 limits will incur. Then it will be a bit too late, of course.


Huh, couldn't we rather, like, promote contraception, instead of mass murder (if I understood the idea of this post)? Confused
Or, even better, to shut down factories, no matter how high the rate of unemployment would rise?
Yup, you misunderstood his post.
 
What he means is it will take some natural catastrophe that kills millions of people before the government will enact any legislation that affects how industry can limit CO2 emissions.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 11:55
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by CPicard

Originally posted by stonebeard

A couple million people will have to die, probably in the US, for our lawmakers to finally think the human toll is outweighing the hit to industry that CO2 limits will incur. Then it will be a bit too late, of course.


Huh, couldn't we rather, like, promote contraception, instead of mass murder (if I understood the idea of this post)? Confused
Or, even better, to shut down factories, no matter how high the rate of unemployment would rise?
Yup, you misunderstood his post.
 
What he means is it will take some natural catastrophe that kills millions of people before the government will enact any legislation that affects how industry can limit CO2 emissions.


Blame my lack of comprehension of the English grammar (but such an extremist idea coming from stonebeard would have surprised me!)

Fun fact: yesterday, the French-German TV channel Arte broadcasted two documentaries about the false "green energies".
Question: am I the only one to think that describing biomass/biofuel as a renewable energy is most stupid and nonsensical?


-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 12:04
Originally posted by CPicard

Fun fact: yesterday, the French-German TV channel Arte broadcasted two documentaries about the false "green energies".
Question: am I the only one to think that describing biomass/biofuel as a renewable energy is most stupid and nonsensical?
No, http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/08/18/is-biomass-really-renewable/" rel="nofollow - I don't think you are alone in thinking that . The whole point of sequestering carbon in a biomass is to keep it there, not to release it back out again.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 01:58
I guess going green wasn't enough.

Does anyone remember how right after 9/11, all airplanes were ground in at least the U.S. as far as I recall, and just from no planes in the sky, which use a ton of oil, the skies that week were clearer than they had been in years.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0520-05.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0520-05.htm



Just imagine if we had a no-driving day, like on Saturdays or Sundays. Although, maybe we need no-driving weeks, once a month, to really make a difference in less than 30 years.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 02:04
Originally posted by darkshade

Does anyone remember how right after 9/11, all airplanes were ground in at least the U.S. as far as I recall, and just from no planes in the sky, which use a ton of oil, the skies that week were clearer than they had been in years.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0520-05.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0520-05.htm

Or not.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/05/911_contrails_study_challenged.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/05/911_contrails_study_challenged.html


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 02:16
Well my point was we need to make drastic changes, like limiting the amount of driving we humans do, and we have to do it yesterday.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 02:23
Originally posted by darkshade

Well my point was we need to make drastic changes, like limiting the amount of driving we humans do, and we have to do it yesterday.


Well, we may be f**ked thenLOL
It's all quite a shame. I do agree, the developing nations of the world, in theory, should have various restrictions and limits to grow in a sustainable way, while we ALL need major shifts in our daily lives.
Plus research into more "green" energy and not fossil fuels.

Sadly, I don't even need to explain the many  extreme difficulties in reality with all of that.

Even nuclear power, which isn't such a bad idea honestly, is viewed as the devil.
Much of it being misinformed so even things we can do now have little chance of increased implementation.



-------------
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."


Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 02:46
Originally posted by JJLehto

Well, we may be f**ked thenLOL



...in all honesty, we are. The only question left is how f**ked we are.


-------------
Hail Eris!


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 04:26
There are apparently too many people. Prof John P Holdren suggested that sterilants could be put into the food and water supply to reduce fertility, and programs of forced sterilisation, abortion and vasectomy could be implemented in the third world, along the lines of past Chinese models to bring global population numbers down. He wrote about it in his 1975 book 'Ecoscience' He also suggested that birthing licenses could be issued to women based on their age, general health and genetic pre-dispoistion to serious illness, and these licences could be marketed through the private sector. He was just 'brainstorming' but he is now Obama's science Tzar, so who knows his type may get their way and save us all from ourselves. Praise be to the party!

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 05:11
Originally posted by Gamemako

Originally posted by JJLehto

Well, we may be f**ked thenLOL



...in all honesty, we are. The only question left is how f**ked we are.
Pretty much. The ecosystem will sort itself out, it always has done, the Earth has been hotter, it has been colder, it has had higher CO2 levels and it has had higher O2 levels, the climate has been more hostile and it has been more temperate, life has had bigger and more widespread extinctions and its had huge species explosions - the Eath and its ecosystem is never static and constantly changes. Gaia will achieve a new equilibrium and life will go on, albeit without a dominant intelligent species that triggered the latest change.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 06:41
Originally posted by Blacksword

There are apparently too many people. Prof John P Holdren suggested that sterilants could be put into the food and water supply to reduce fertility, and programs of forced sterilisation, abortion and vasectomy could be implemented in the third world, along the lines of past Chinese models to bring global population numbers down. He wrote about it in his 1975 book 'Ecoscience' He also suggested that birthing licenses could be issued to women based on their age, general health and genetic pre-dispoistion to serious illness, and these licences could be marketed through the private sector. He was just 'brainstorming' but he is now Obama's science Tzar, so who knows his type may get their way and save us all from ourselves. Praise be to the party!


Far too many people. Isaac Asimov once said that this planet can support about two billion people all living a modern 'western' lifestyle. We passed two billion about ninety years ago, and we passed four billion in about 1974, and we'll pass eight billion in about another fourteen years or so. (It seems like the population is doubling about every fifty years, but this is a temporary thing)

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 07:16
Originally posted by Dean


Originally posted by Gamemako


Originally posted by JJLehto

Well, we may be f**ked thenLOL
...in all honesty, we are. The only question left is how f**ked we are.

Pretty much. The ecosystem will sort itself out, it always has done, the Earth has been hotter, it has been colder, it has had higher CO2 levels and it has had higher O2 levels, the climate has been more hostile and it has been more temperate, life has had bigger and more widespread extinctions and its had huge species explosions - the Eath and its ecosystem is never static and constantly changes. Gaia will achieve a new equilibrium and life will go on, albeit without a dominant intelligent species that triggered the latest change.


Sorry if you've been asked before. Out of interest, do you believe that anthropogenic global warming is real?

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 07:32
Originally posted by Blacksword

There are apparently too many people. 
 
You've hit the nail on the head there Andy.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/chopper777/?chartstyle=basicrt10" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 07:37
Originally posted by chopper

Originally posted by Blacksword

There are apparently too many people. 

 

You've hit the nail on the head there Andy.


I don't necessarily share the view though....

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 07:45
There are too many people eating too much of the food that too many other people are having to survive without. There's plenty of food for all, but it's in the wrong places.

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 07:49
Originally posted by Blacksword

Originally posted by chopper

Originally posted by Blacksword

There are apparently too many people. 

 

You've hit the nail on the head there Andy.


I don't necessarily share the view though....
Oops sorry. I'll check with you again the next time we're trying to fight our way to the Coal Hole bar on a Friday night. Wink

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/chopper777/?chartstyle=basicrt10" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 07:51
All the food that gets wasted in America in one day could probably stop world hunger for 6-8 months. Work in a restaurant for a week and watch how much food gets thrown out, either by people not finishing their meals, or by food not being sold, and those are just the 2 big reasons.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 08:15
Originally posted by Stool Man

There are too many people eating too much of the food that too many other people are having to survive without. There's plenty of food for all, but it's in the wrong places.


That's not a problem with population size. That's a problem with food distribution, or more specifically food politics and economics. There is more than enough food to go round, and as scientific approaches to intensive farming continue to progress there will be all the more.

The challenge, in my opinion is not the size of global population, which in some regions is actually in significant decline, but ensuring the blocks to people in poor countries getting the food they need are removed, be they political, enviornmental etc etc.. North Korea is a good example where their leadership is happy to let it's population starve rather than accept aid from the US, in return for compromises with it's military programmes. Kissenger advocated using 'food as a weapon' and one can spin the NK scenario in whiuchever way you choose to show either the US or NK in a bad light, but it is an example of people being held to ransom by the supply of a plentiful food supply.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 08:16
Originally posted by chopper

Originally posted by Blacksword

Originally posted by chopper

Originally posted by Blacksword

There are apparently too many people. 

 

You've hit the nail on the head there Andy.
I don't necessarily share the view though....

Oops sorry. I'll check with you again the next time we're trying to fight our way to the Coal Hole bar on a Friday night. Wink


Yeah ok, London early on a Friday evening may be exception...

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 08:52
Originally posted by Blacksword


Sorry if you've been asked before. Out of interest, do you believe that anthropogenic global warming is real?
Honest answer is "I don't know" - I believe we are contributary, but are not necessarily the cause. I think the cause is natural but we are making it much worse. The Earth's climate and ecosystem is never static and never actually achieves a steady-state equilibrium where CO2 output from animals is completely balanced by O2 output from plants.
 
The "Gaia" reference in my post is a nod towards the Gaia Hypothesis even though I don't actually believe it is real - the shifting balance between animals and plants is not a goal seeking evolution, it's just what happens naturally and it isn't as finely-tuned as the Gaia Hypothesis proponets would suggest (in technical terms it is under-damped) - the planet cannot support a major imbalance so as one begins to dominate the penduluum swings back the other way.We have "survived" two or three of these periods of high concentrations of CO2 since we first fell out of the tree on the African savanha - they normally kill off megafauna who need high O2 levels in the atmosphere to survive (Though we have been blamed for that too - which is surprising given the human population size at that time). On geological time-scales these fluctuations can be very extreme with wide ranges of temperature and atmosphere composition.
 
I suspect (and the long-term data from ice-cores suggests this) that we have arrived at an unfortunate co-incidence of one of these natural swings away from O2 breathers at the same time as we as a species have started producing more CO2 than we would naturally do as an animal of our current population size.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 09:37
Originally posted by Dean


Originally posted by Blacksword


Sorry if you've been asked before. Out of interest, do you believe that anthropogenic global warming is real?

Honest answer is "I don't know" - I believe we are contributary, but are not necessarily the cause. I think the cause is natural but we are making it much worse. The Earth's climate and ecosystem is never static and never actually achieves a steady-state equilibrium where CO2 output from animals is completely balanced by O2 output from plants.
 
The "Gaia" reference in my post is a nod towards the Gaia Hypothesis even though I don't actually believe it is real - the shifting balance between animals and plants is not a goal seeking evolution, it's just what happens naturally and it isn't as finely-tuned as the Gaia Hypothesis proponets would suggest (in technical terms it is under-damped) - the planet cannot support a major imbalance so as one begins to dominate the penduluum swings back the other way.We have "survived" two or three of these periods of high concentrations of CO2 since we first fell out of the tree on the African savanha - they normally kill off megafauna who need high O2 levels in the atmosphere to survive (Though we have been blamed for that too - which is surprising given the human population size at that time). On geological time-scales these fluctuations can be very extreme with wide ranges of temperature and atmosphere composition.
 
I suspect (and the long-term data from ice-cores suggests this) that we have arrived at an unfortunate co-incidence of one of these natural swings away from O2 breathers at the same time as we as a species have started producing more CO2 than we would naturally do as an animal of our current population size.


I'm inclined to agree with pretty much all of that.



-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: King Only
Date Posted: May 20 2013 at 14:37
Just some of my random thoughts on this topic:

Birthrates fall as countries become 'developed' so population growth should eventually slow down if all countries become 'developed'. Although of course people in developed countries live longer which creates different kinds of social and economic problems.

I'm not sure if it's possible for all the planet's nations to be 'developed' at the same time if we continue the same kind of exploitation of natural resources and cheap labor practices because we want cheap consumer goods.

Previously developed countries might collapse economically (some say this is happening in Greece now). But I wonder what the mental effect on people is... if you were born and raised in a developing country then you would be less aware of what living in a developed country is like. But if you are living in a country that was previously 'rich' but has now become 'poor' then how does that influence you mentally?

Here in Japan many people seem very apathetic because they feel that Japan's 'golden days' are in the past and never coming back. People seem very apathetic about the future. They still enjoy their lives but seem to have lost their ambition and drive (I'm not saying this is a 'good' or 'bad' thing because I'm not sure). And Japan is 'officially' the world's third largest economy and a 'rich' country but almost everybody I know is worried about money, the pension system, the future... and there are a lot of homeless people and unemployed people and mentally ill people living in this supposedly 'rich' country. 

There's been natural extinction events and extreme climate change before humans were around. But we are definitely contributing to the problems.

Nuclear Power is a good solution to our energy problems in theory, but in reality some of the facilities are not properly managed or maintained which can lead to accidents. Like all companies they sometimes cut costs in areas they shouldn't.



Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 09 2013 at 00:39
So I thought this would have become big news at some point after the 400 ppm hit, but so far, not one media outlet has mentioned this, even as an afterthought. I'm not surprised though, especially since the shut down of electric cars went pretty much unnoticed by news outlets 12 years ago.

This is not a topic that should die off like most other topics (I don't just mean here at PA).

Is the media threatened by the oil companies, or is it a case of "well, that's something the next generations will have to deal with". Well, then don't have kids, because either they, or their kids, are going to have to try and survive in an environment not fit for human beings to live in.

What don't people get? The Earth we all know and love is not going to be the hospitable place it (barely) is now in 30 years. 30 years. That's not a lot of time in the grand scheme of things.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: King Only
Date Posted: June 09 2013 at 08:37
Originally posted by darkshade

...the shut down of electric cars went pretty much unnoticed by news outlets 12 years ago.

There are a lot of electric cars in Japan these days. But I'm not sure how much it helps. They run on electricity but that electricity still has to be generated somewhere. So it comes from power plants that use nuclear energy or burn fossil fuels.


Posted By: King Only
Date Posted: June 09 2013 at 08:49
Originally posted by darkshade

 What don't people get? The Earth we all know and love is not going to be the hospitable place it (barely) is now in 30 years. 30 years. That's not a lot of time in the grand scheme of things.

I think people 'get it'. But realistically, what can people do about it? People are so busy taking care of their short-term problems like working to pay the rent/mortgage and earning enough money to survive day to day. Most people don't have time to find solutions to problems that are 30 years away. Modern life causes a lot of stress and distracts people from things that might be important.





Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 09 2013 at 10:04
Originally posted by King Only

Originally posted by darkshade

 What don't people get? The Earth we all know and love is not going to be the hospitable place it (barely) is now in 30 years. 30 years. That's not a lot of time in the grand scheme of things.

I think people 'get it'. But realistically, what can people do about it? People are so busy taking care of their short-term problems like working to pay the rent/mortgage and earning enough money to survive day to day. Most people don't have time to find solutions to problems that are 30 years away. Modern life causes a lot of stress and distracts people from things that might be important.



I meant the people that CAN do something about it. Like politicians, famous/rich people because they have the time and money, etc... Anyone who CAN do something about it, or at least bring awareness to the issue.

"Going Green" spread like wildfire over the last few years, there's no reason why something like that can't be done. I must have talked to dozens of people over the past month or so, and more or less, they were not aware that our atmosphere is reaching the point of no return until I told them. The media has not brought the issue out to the public's awareness.

I understand it's hard, I don't even know what I can do about it, but the least everyone can do is spread the word, and maybe try not to drive everywhere you go, if it's close enough.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 13 2013 at 18:59
If anyone complains or is wondering why we have been getting such wacky weather lately, keep this issue in mind. It's all related.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: FLAC
Date Posted: June 14 2013 at 14:26
ah screw it I will enjoy life and live in the present moment I will listen to some prog drink some wine smoke some weed and when climate change destroys our planet I will have no regrets because I will die doing what I love.


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 14 2013 at 17:32
Originally posted by King Only

Originally posted by darkshade

...the shut down of electric cars went pretty much unnoticed by news outlets 12 years ago.

There are a lot of electric cars in Japan these days. But I'm not sure how much it helps. They run on electricity but that electricity still has to be generated somewhere. So it comes from power plants that use nuclear energy or burn fossil fuels.


Indeed.
Not that cleaner running cars are a bad thing, but the real change needs to come at the core you mentioned...a change off fossil fuels.
Shame that a great candidate for the future of energy (there are of course multiple solutions needed) is nuclear energy which is seemingly trying to be killed as badly as the electric car!


Ah Darkshade we all know the answer, it's laziness. If we all made the daily, significant changes to reduce our "carbon footprint" and be more green and all that would truly make the grandest difference of all.
But that's hard.
And not even bashing (I certainly am guilty) it's just hard to do, especially in global numbers.



-------------
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwiz.co.uk