If you look at our planet from space on the dark side you'll see it lit up like a Christmas tree. Most (not all admittedly) of those little lights are created by the burning of fossil fuels, just looking at the picture you can tell that something is not right, it is blindingly obvious. How long can these little fires carry on burning every night without causing damage to the planet? Well, nobody knows exactly because of the shear number of inputs that drive mathematical equations that are “the model” which we rely upon to tell us. An example of this has been raised already on this thread and that is the ‘fact’ that average temperatures have not risen over the past decade, this caused quite a stir among scientists initially. However, new cyclical periods have been found through data analysis, once these are added it brings the stagnation into perspective. Cycles such as the seventy year reduction in solar activity and the reduction in ocean temperatures that should be occurring now and would normally cool the planet down.
I never mentioned global warming, I talked about the carbon cycle and I did that because carbon levels are a more critical factor in determining habitable terrain than temperature, there are more effects of high carbon concentrations than just greenhouse gases. What we know about this comes mostly from other planets that have or have had high concentrations of carbon in their atmospheres. The graph (ill attach in the next post due to restrictions) shows carbon dioxide levels from Hawaii about as far from the major causes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere man made or natural as you can get. Clearly there has been a 25% increase since 1960 but, what is not clear from that is the level of acceleration. As the world becomes more industrialised everybody wants the energy that is needed to power it.
What is clear is that we have not had enough time to find interpret and properly adjust 'the model' with all the cyclical changes that take place naturally and the unfortunate thing is that we do not have the time to do it either. The jury is not out on global warming at all, 99.9% of scientists believe that there is a correlation in average temperatures and the levels of atmospheric carbon. They also agree that carbon levels are rising, debate only surrounds the speed of increase and the effects of increase. When the tipping point comes is anyone’s guess, some fuzzy logic chaos theorists might have a good idea but most of the rest are just best guessing. That is where controversy lies, not in the fact that it is happening at all.
Personally I cant understand why suddenly, after all these years of trusting the scientific model people start to doubt the credibility of such establishments as the Royal Society and the Met Office. The Royal Society have been at the forefront of scientific thinking for hundreds of years, their motto is Nullius in Verba (take no ones word for it), the proof is out there just look at the picture again, the scale of that is immense.
We have a hundred years of oil left maybe but if we burn it all, we will not have a habitable planet. Carbon is a highly reactive substance that can be both benign and highly destructive, don’t underestimate its power.
...I think population growth is far more injurious to the planet. We cannot continue to have more and more people without it badly affecting the planet. More and more land is needed for housing and wildlife is being affected as a result.
We need biodiversity for the planet to survive yet many species are becoming extinct due to their habitat destruction...
I think this this is a highly valid point.
Recently the BBC had an on line 'calculator' on it's terrific website: How many people were alive when you were born was the topic. I was born in early 1950, I was somewhere around the 2 and a half BILLIONTH human being alive at that point in time. This year the figure for the world's human population reaches/has reached 7 BILLION. ALL resources are finite, oil, wood, iron, bauxite, gold, especially the most precious, fresh water. The planet Earth will be barren and worn out eventually but not for a good few years yet. This cheerful thought is unfortunately a certainty. Synthetics? .. you may ask, synthetics must be made from something. Many of today's synthetics are made from (yes folks) oil. I refer you to the writings (much derided & debated) of Thomas Malthus on the subject of human population and the availability of food. The same criteria as Malthus outllnes also are appropriate for all resources I would argue.
If growth in the emerging countries continue at their current rate then at some point by the year 2100 we could be at 18 BILLION. Conservative estimates are 10 BILLION.
Either way we're screwed without a serious worldwide change in the way we consume resources (oil, gas, water, food, etc). As others have said not just the West but everywhere.
The other scary thing as mentioned elsewhere is that the current emerging countries haven't been consuming resources at anywhere near the same level as the West, but are rapidly heading down that path. And of course the double whammy is they are the areas of the most rapid population growth too.
I make you right loco. Sadly oil may not run out before we discover the hard way the maximum limits on CO2 and other noxious gasses that our atmosphere can sustain.
It is stuff like this which probably devastates the environment more: -
If growth in the emerging countries continue at their current rate then at some point by the year 2100 we could be at 18 BILLION. Conservative estimates are 10 BILLION.
Either way we're screwed without a serious worldwide change in the way we consume resources (oil, gas, water, food, etc). As others have said not just the West but everywhere.
The other scary thing as mentioned elsewhere is that the current emerging countries haven't been consuming resources at anywhere near the same level as the West, but are rapidly heading down that path. And of course the double whammy is they are the areas of the most rapid population growth too.
Scary scary times for our kids and grandkids.
A major reason why my missus and I decided against having children.
The graph looks like a massive increase in temperature until you look at the scale on the left - the increase is minute. We have temperature variations of far more than that from one day to the next, so I can't see how an increase of about one degree can make much difference.
If you not understanding meant it wasn't a problem, that'd be a result.
Please enlighten me if you think I have misunderstood.
Comments
If you look at our planet from space on the dark side you'll see it lit up like a Christmas tree. Most (not all admittedly) of those little lights are created by the burning of fossil fuels, just looking at the picture you can tell that something is not right, it is blindingly obvious. How long can these little fires carry on burning every night without causing damage to the planet? Well, nobody knows exactly because of the shear number of inputs that drive mathematical equations that are “the model” which we rely upon to tell us. An example of this has been raised already on this thread and that is the ‘fact’ that average temperatures have not risen over the past decade, this caused quite a stir among scientists initially. However, new cyclical periods have been found through data analysis, once these are added it brings the stagnation into perspective. Cycles such as the seventy year reduction in solar activity and the reduction in ocean temperatures that should be occurring now and would normally cool the planet down.
I never mentioned global warming, I talked about the carbon cycle and I did that because carbon levels are a more critical factor in determining habitable terrain than temperature, there are more effects of high carbon concentrations than just greenhouse gases. What we know about this comes mostly from other planets that have or have had high concentrations of carbon in their atmospheres. The graph (ill attach in the next post due to restrictions) shows carbon dioxide levels from Hawaii about as far from the major causes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere man made or natural as you can get. Clearly there has been a 25% increase since 1960 but, what is not clear from that is the level of acceleration. As the world becomes more industrialised everybody wants the energy that is needed to power it.
What is clear is that we have not had enough time to find interpret and properly adjust 'the model' with all the cyclical changes that take place naturally and the unfortunate thing is that we do not have the time to do it either. The jury is not out on global warming at all, 99.9% of scientists believe that there is a correlation in average temperatures and the levels of atmospheric carbon. They also agree that carbon levels are rising, debate only surrounds the speed of increase and the effects of increase. When the tipping point comes is anyone’s guess, some fuzzy logic chaos theorists might have a good idea but most of the rest are just best guessing. That is where controversy lies, not in the fact that it is happening at all.
Personally I cant understand why suddenly, after all these years of trusting the scientific model people start to doubt the credibility of such establishments as the Royal Society and the Met Office. The Royal Society have been at the forefront of scientific thinking for hundreds of years, their motto is Nullius in Verba (take no ones word for it), the proof is out there just look at the picture again, the scale of that is immense.
We have a hundred years of oil left maybe but if we burn it all, we will not have a habitable planet. Carbon is a highly reactive substance that can be both benign and highly destructive, don’t underestimate its power.
ALL resources are finite, oil, wood, iron, bauxite, gold, especially the most precious, fresh water. The planet Earth will be barren and worn out eventually but not for a good few years yet. This cheerful thought is unfortunately a certainty. Synthetics? .. you may ask, synthetics must be made from something. Many of today's synthetics are made from (yes folks) oil.
I refer you to the writings (much derided & debated) of Thomas Malthus on the subject of human population and the availability of food. The same criteria as Malthus outllnes also are appropriate for all resources I would argue.
Either way we're screwed without a serious worldwide change in the way we consume resources (oil, gas, water, food, etc). As others have said not just the West but everywhere.
The other scary thing as mentioned elsewhere is that the current emerging countries haven't been consuming resources at anywhere near the same level as the West, but are rapidly heading down that path. And of course the double whammy is they are the areas of the most rapid population growth too.
Scary scary times for our kids and grandkids.
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/after-burning-for-50-years-chinese-coal-fires-may-finally-be-extinguished.html
Developing workd countries are getting wealthier more quicly than at any time in history and this feeds through to smaller families.