Spinning wheels of Global Warming

[Andre]

In the early days of Global Warming, the "capo di tutti global warming capi", Stephan Schneider, made his world famous public appeal to commit noble cause corruption:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.

It's likely that this appeal is one of the most successful in the history of manking condering the statements for instance in the new Summary for Policy makers of the IPCC without an assessment report which has to be amended to reflex the summary. So, the doubts are to be surpressed. Here a first example:

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_3/14_1.shtml

...The PHYSICS TODAY piece is based on analysis of work by Harry Bryden, Hannah Longworth, and Stuart Cunningham,1 which concluded that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation slowed by about 30% between 1957 and 2004. Their work inspired speculations that the anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide may be responsible for the weakening of heat transport from the tropics, and that such an effect has now been detected.

The conclusion that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has decreased by 30% does not follow from the data presented by Bryden and coauthors, but is based on an incorrect treatment of measurement errors...

However:

Bryden's paper as submitted for publication to Nature included a question mark at the end of the title, suggesting only a possibility that the circulation might be slowing down. On the editor's insistence, the question mark was removed, and the title was changed into a positive statement that caused a considerable stir.

Emphasis mine, after all the command of the guru must be obeyed

More to follow

 

[Andre]

Swindle is a big word, I'd say but some think not:

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

So did you watch Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" and would you also go and watch this?

Channel 4 Thursday 8 March at 9pm

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

unfortunately not only scientists feel the change in climate, animals and humans also notice the changes that is happening around them. besides u don't expect me to believe that removing half the worlds trees and increasing the use of fossil fuels would not have a dramatic effect on nature? that is not a made up scenario, this is our life now.

 

[Andre]

That's not the point at all. But most certainly the strong dominance of Homo urbanus and the devastating effect on nature is worrying and should have the utmost attention, but using scientific fraud in an attempt to correct that is even worse.

Why, because with incorrect information we are bound to do the worng things. What would it help to sequestrate carbon and send solar radiation defectors into space at the moment that a new little ice age would start?

What would happen with the trustworthiness of environmental science when nature makes it fully clear that there is no antropogenic global warming? Whe simply should not accept the fraud.

The next scam attempt is exposed by Roger Pielke Jr here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/001131spinning_science.html

 

[denverdoc]

That's not the point at all. But most certainly the strong dominance of Homo urbanus and the devastating effect on nature is worrying and should have the utmost attention, but using scientific fraud in an attempt to correct that is even worse.

Why, because with incorrect information we are bound to do the worng things. What would it help to sequestrate carbon and send solar radiation defectors into space at the moment that a new little ice age would start?

What would happen with the trustworthiness of environmental science when nature makes it fully clear that there is no antropogenic global warming? Whe simply should not accept the fraud.

The next scam attempt is exposed by Roger Pielke Jr here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/001131spinning_science.html

Solar radiation shields in space? I'm aware of thoughts re sequestration, hopefully the engineers would consider an on/off switch. Even if its a matter of scientists crying wolf, and a waste of $$ who cares?

This is a pointless argument IMO--one can do nothing and hope the claims are grossly exaggerated, or we clean up our act. Even if wrong re AGW, we have a cleaner world for having done so and can use the oil for better purposes than propelling a cargo fraction of 5 percent around town or using coal for generating electricity. I think this point has been like a dozen times on the various threads. Until a really cogent argument can be made for inaction...

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

btw...with the price of such a shield that i think eventually we will need something like that. we still have a chance by planting millions of trees all around the world, and stopping population growth, India is trying to stop its population growth, and i think all the world should be forced to follow. planting trees and stopping population growth...thats the solution...and of course deminishing polution, recycling...

 

[denverdoc]

Priceless. Of course any such shield should be a really big billboard with Exxon-Mobil ads using solar wind to drive some really cool lights.

Seriously, after Rachel Carson's book in the 60's and the understanding that there are limits to growth, and that carrying capacity is a really, really fundamental concept, the US was striving for zero population growth--that was about a 100 million ago, must all be illegal Mexican immigrants.

Even more seriously, I don't hear anything about curbing pop growth these days, why not? Is it against someone's religion?

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

no religion that i know off has something against curbing pop growth. besides religion is translated according to the needs of the religious men...we should ask them to translate some paragraphs in religious books in the way that would save the Earth :)

 

[russ_watters]

I've never heard about the US attempting to curb its population growth. The US is among the most able to handle a larger population and we certainly haven't made any attempt to cut off immigration. Here are our historical rates: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us

The only other place in the world where population growth is all that high right now is Africa and frankly, AIDS is going to stop that.

Regardless, curbing population growth won't do anything, since the world's economy will continue to grow and energy usage along with it. To cut pollution (either for global warming or just so people can breath outside without masks) requires making smarter choices about energy production. The easy place to start is by building a hundred nuclear plants in the US and reprocessing our spent fuel. That would allow us to close half of our coal plants and reduce our air pollution by about a 10%. It would take 20 years, but it really would be easy to do. I focus on coal because coal has a lot of other nasties in it that we should really get rid of, whereas natural gas and oil burn much cleaner. If you are a global warming proponent, then, my suggestion only helps a little bit.

Cutting carbon dioxide emissions significantly just isn't a possibility without a paradigm shift in the way we make and use energy. Carbon dioxide is one of the primary - and most desirable - products of combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.

 

[Evo]

I've never heard about the US attempting to curb its population growth.

You're probably too young to remember. It was an environmental activist group formed in the late 60's called Zero Population Growth. They changed their name a few years a go to "Population Connection". Here's a blurb about it.

Population Connection is an organization in the United States, formerly known as Zero Population Growth. They adopted their current name in 2002. Zero Population Growth was originally founded in 1968 by Paul R. Ehrlich, Richard Bowers, and Charles Remington, in the wake of the impact from Ehrlich's best-selling book, The Population Bomb.

According to an ad in the paperback edition of that book: Zero Population Growth Inc. is an organization which has been formed to bring the crucial issue of over-population to the attention of the general public, and more specifically, to the attention of our legislators (both state and federal): the ultimate goal of ZPG being to form a lobby group to press for legislation to implement far-reaching birth control programs, repeal of archaic legislation that runs counter to these objectives, and to press for allocation of funds for more research into population problems and research for better methods of contraception. In addition, ZPG will press for tax laws that, instead of offering incentives for having more children, will emphasize the need for population control."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Connection

 

[russ_watters]

You're probably too young to remember.

I never get tired of hearing that

It was an environmental activist group formed in the late 60's called Zero Population Growth. They changed their name a few years a go to "Population Connection". Here's a blurb about it...

Ok, but I guess the point is, was it ever a significant movement? At it's peak, that group had a membership of 35,000, a drop in the bucket compared to some major environmentalist groups.

Lawmakers, from time to time, will target immigration for economic and political reasons, but I've never heard of a major push to curb population growth.

 

[Evo]

I never get tired of hearing that Ok, but I guess the point is, was it ever a significant movement? At it's peak, that group had a membership of 35,000, a drop in the bucket compared to some major environmentalist groups.

Lawmakers, from time to time, will target immigration for economic and political reasons, but I've never heard of a major push to curb population growth.

No, it was never anything major in the US. It seems they have since changed their focus to third world countries.

 

[denverdoc]

No, it was never anything major in the US. It seems they have since changed their focus to third world countries.

I don't think it is properly characterized as a single environmentalist group, but more as an idea that gained considerable traction at the time. Certainly neither of my parents were a member of the group.

I do remember a college lecture ca. 1975 (evolutionary biology, irc) in a large auditorium that had three giant blackboards spanning it and a professor walking the length while drawing a horizontal line as he went, and then at the end an upwards spike, saying it would take 40 miles of horizontal blackboard to fairly represent the scale of human population growth. Obviously made an impression, guess they don't teach that sort of thing anymore.

 

[edward]

In the 1960's it was frequently referred to as the "population explosion". Evidently the Earth can support a lot more people than was predicted at that time. Changes in agricultural development have increased the food supply.

On thing is for sure, we will be running out of naturally produced foods such as seafood. I read an article that said by 2048 seafood will have virtually disappeared.

 

[denverdoc]

In the 1960's it was frequently referred to as the "population explosion". Evidently the Earth can support a lot more people than was predicted at that time. Changes in agricultural development have increased the food supply.

On thing is for sure, we will be running out of naturally produced foods such as seafood. I read an article that said by 2048 seafood will have virtually disappeared.

I don't remember the numbers, but when you consider that a good number are starving as we speak, that we are running out of ground water at an alarming rate, the AGW issue, and the dependency on petro based agriculture, maybe they weren't far off, as in we have reached the plateau on the s curve and lest we find a way to reduce pollution, may be on the downward side soon. The oceans are just another symptom.

 

[light_bulb]

what do you say to everyone when it comes time to ration food? say you live in new york where the daily food supply has to be trucked in twice a day, ouch.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

ration food? why? just shoot everyone who can't afford to buy it :P.

Well i think its dumb when you have african countries with overpopulation and starving to death, and still insist on bringing thousands of children,eventually they will self destruct, they already are half way there.. Rationing food will never occur, cause the Earth always used to FIGHT over resources, and that is already what's happening in some countries, Israel invaded southern Lebanon because of the water there...I think overpopulation has to be stopped at any cost, water is not enough, food is not enough, too much pollution, too much heat, its a plan to suicide if we don't stop it now./

 

[edward]

ration food? why? just shoot everyone who can't afford to buy it :P.

Well i think its dumb when you have african countries with overpopulation and starving to death, and still insist on bringing thousands of children,eventually they will self destruct, they already are half way there.. Rationing food will never occur, cause the Earth always used to FIGHT over resources, and that is already what's happening in some countries, Israel invaded southern Lebanon because of the water there...I think overpopulation has to be stopped at any cost, water is not enough, food is not enough, too much pollution, too much heat, its a plan to suicide if we don't stop it now./

I agree , we need to change and change now, but we won't.

I think to a great extent the general public is still just plain complacent. Plus in the eyes of many, science can fix everything.

The whole problem boils down to the use of fossil fuels. People, especially Americans, aren't about to give up their love of stepping on that gas pedal and zipping from zero to sixty in under 8 seconds. It is almost as if it gives us a feeling of empowerment.

The oil and coal companies are not about to give up their fabulous wealth until they decide to come up with and control alternative energy.

People who invest in the energy companies, and I know a lot of them, have a way of allowing their wallets to filter out anything they don't want to hear.

We have been told time after time that any changes could be harmful to the economy. No one wants to risk that pay check so another large group filters out the obvious.

The reasons for not doing anything about GW are so numerous and so ingrained in our lifestyle that we and generations to follow will indeed experience the consequences of our own inaction.

 

[russ_watters]

Obviously made an impression, guess they don't teach that sort of thing anymore.

Probably because it is misleading to the point of being just plain inaccurate. If you could draw that graph, you'd see the spike leveling off, but the teacher didn't say that (though perhaps back then the leveleing-off wasn't as pronounced as it is today). Similar graphs, such as the top one in this Wik link fail to adequately show the drop in population growth, while others on a shorter timescale (such as the bottom one) do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

but when you consider that a good number are starving as we speak...

Starvation in the world is almost entirely a political problem. Besides the billions of pounds of grain the US govt buys and discards each year to pump up prices, Africa has rejected the very grain that could keep their citizens from starving to death due to enviroterrorist propaganda.

 

[light_bulb]

enviroterrorist?

 

[russ_watters]

When your environmentalism kills people or threatens to kill people to further the cause, that's terrorism (that's the definition of the word "terrorism"). In this case, it killed people.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

the spike leveling off, but the teacher didn't say that (though perhaps back then the leveleing-off wasn't as pronounced as it is today). Similar graphs, such as the top one in this Wik link fail to adequately show the drop in population growth, while others on a shorter timescale (such as the bottom one) do.

The problem is not the drop in population growth, its the fact that population is still increasing, and when u speak about this growth its still in the order of millions. Politics is the main factor of everything from famine, to environmental destruction...but u got to deal with all the problems which one of them is population increase

 

[russ_watters]

The problem is not the drop in population growth, its the fact that population is still increasing, and when u speak about this growth its still in the order of millions.

But this means, despite what the first graph implies, that the world is not in danger of overpopulation because growth is not geometric and appears that it will actually stop completely in the near future.

Politics is the main factor of everything from famine, to environmental destruction...

I agree, but some people have argued (or at least implied) that the world is not physically capable of supporting the number of people it has today or will have in the near future. This is simply not true.

Soooo... from the second part, overpopulation is not a problem today and from the first part, overpopulation isn't going to be a problem in the future either.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

but their is a limit to how much population the Earth can handle..simple calculations shows that ppl need water, where are they going to get all the water if we were to populate the whole earth? mayb its a fictional limit but if some1 can calculate it he will obtain the population limit of the earth. 2nd people cause heat, take space, then they heat the earth...mayb its a small fraction mayb not, but in both cases we need to calculate it to be sure

 

[denverdoc]

But this means, despite what the first graph implies, that the world is not in danger of overpopulation because growth is not geometric and appears that it will actually stop completely in the near future. I agree, but some people have argued (or at least implied) that the world is not physically capable of supporting the number of people it has today or will have in the near future. This is simply not true.

Soooo... from the second part, overpopulation is not a problem today and from the first part, overpopulation isn't going to be a problem in the future either.

That would be me I guess, because of the diminishing water tables in many areas of the world, and our reliance on petro based agriculture to feed the world. Just what do you think will happen when oil becomes very scarce? Or let me guess, that's all liberal propoganda/scare tactics.

 

[edward]

;1266423]But this means, despite what the first graph implies, that the world is not in danger of overpopulation because growth is not geometric and appears that it will actually stop completely in the near future.

As the result of a massive plague a perhaps, but in reality population growth has only leveled off in the developed countries.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/61

I agree, but some people have argued (or at least implied) that the world is not physically capable of supporting the number of people it has today or will have in the near future. This is simply not true.

Agriculture is keeping up with the current population demand. The oceans are not.

http://earthwatch.unep.net/oceans/oceanfisheries.php

Soooo... from the second part, overpopulation is not a problem today and from the first part, overpopulation isn't going to be a problem in the future either.

Only if the people no longer require water to drink or to grow crops. Here in the Western state we are already doing some very strange things with sewage effluent.

http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2002/09/14/23791.php

 

[russ_watters]

but their is a limit to how much population the Earth can handle..simple calculations shows that ppl need water, where are they going to get all the water if we were to populate the whole earth? mayb its a fictional limit but if some1 can calculate it he will obtain the population limit of the earth. 2nd people cause heat, take space, then they heat the earth...mayb its a small fraction mayb not, but in both cases we need to calculate it to be sure

Sure, there is a limit, but since we are nowhere close to the limit and likely never will be, why is this an important issue?

 

[russ_watters]

That would be me I guess, because of the diminishing water tables in many areas of the world, and our reliance on petro based agriculture to feed the world. Just what do you think will happen when oil becomes very scarce?

We'll switch to nuclear, like we should have done in the '70s anyway. Nuclear [fission] power is the only viable long-term solution to our energy needs (unless we ever figure out fusion).

 

[russ_watters]

As the result of a massive plague a perhaps, but in reality population growth has only leveled off in the developed countries.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/61

Maybe you don't realize it, but that graph still supports my point. All the way up until the middle of last century, population growth was almost pure geometric, with doubling times of around 30 years (it is a little tough to see, but somewhere around 1960, the graph went from concave up to concave down). That time is over and it is very possible that the world population will not double again.

But as to whether it levels off at 8 billion or 12 billion, I didn't make a prediction. And in any case, there is a massive plague that is afecting the growth rate, but it is not factored into those numbers. That and the fact that I am optomistic that the current trend of rapid development will continue (developed nations are culturally inclined to have lower growth rates) is why I tend to see the lower estimates as being more likely.

Agriculture is keeping up with the current population demand. The oceans are not.

True, but it doesn't really affect what we are talking about here.

Only if the people no longer require water to drink or to grow crops. Here in the Western state we are already doing some very strange things with sewage effluent.

The second sentence contradicts the first, but in any case it highlights a good point: people who think overpopulation is an issue tend to overlook the technological and economic factors that enable the population to grow.

Water right now in the US is a completely valueless throw-away commodity. That's partly because of the reality that it is (eventually) completely self-recycle-able, but as it becomes more scarce, its value will eventually go up to the point where it becomes economically feasible to recycle it.

Last month, I spent roughly $200 on heat and electricity for my house and iirc, about $15 on water. All of that water bill is in the delivery and billing. If the cost of water itself becomes a few cents a gallon that would double my bill, but for an extra $15 a month, I'm not even batting an eyelash - but that amount of money opens up whole new economic frontiers for water management.

Energy is more difficult since the cost is already significant, but nuclear power is not fundamentally more expensive than other forms of power - most of the cost is in the politics of building a plant, not in its operation. When the prices start to go up, the politics will go away proportionally and the overall cost of the energy will not change significantly.

That takes care of coal, but cars will be more difficult. Gas is still far too cheap in the US for other technologies to have a chance, but other technologies (and other alternatives) exist that could fill the void without too much trouble if gas prices suddenly quadruple (to bring them in line with what they are in Europe).

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

Nuclear? i would go to solar energy u know..besides there's no energy good for earth, goes every energy means more heat to earth, unfortunately

 

[russ_watters]

Just to put a small caveat on this:

When your environmentalism kills people or threatens to kill people to further the cause, that's terrorism (that's the definition of the word "terrorism"). In this case, it killed people.

It isn't quite the same for most environmentalists. For terrorists (including typical enviroterrorists), killing or the threat of killing is a means of persuasion. What happened in Africa is actually due to an indifference to the effect of the policy on human life. Ie, protect the genome even if it means killing a few million people by rejecting the food that could feed them.

That's probably closer to just being pure murder based on the indifference to the value of human life. But is that better or worse?

 

[russ_watters]

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/61

Btw, it isn't too difficult to throw the starting assumptions (1.1% growth rate, 6 billion initial population in 1999) into an Excel spreadsheet and duplicate their results. Attached is a few minutes of playing with the numbers. Some things I found:

-If the growth rate continued geometrically at 1.1%, we'd have a doubling time of 63 years.
-By trial and error, I found that their projection (finding a 9.1 billion population in 2050) requires a 1.1% annual drop in growth rate.
-At a 1.1% annual drop in growth rate it takes a very long time for the growth to flatten out, but the doubling time quickly goes into the hundreds of years (ie, the population in 2200 would only be 14.5 billion).
-This calculation does not allow for negative growth rates. It should and I'm trying to figure out how to do that (probably needs a 3rd term...).

 

[edward]

Russ, that is very impressive but it does not deal with the large number of variables that constitute the global population growth vs food supply question. For instance animals are not efficient producers of calories.

Dietary factors in world food shortage

The numbers of people potentially supported by the global food supply depend heavily on the kind of diet people consume. The World Hunger Program calculates that global food supplies have been more than adequate, since the mid-1970s, to support the world's population on a vegetarian diet (table 3.1). But they would support only 74 per cent of the 1993 population on a diet where 15 per cent of calories come from animal foods (Uvin 1996). Only 56 per cent of the 1993 world population could have been provided with diets where 25 per cent of calories came from animal foods (Uvin 1996).

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu22we/uu22we09.htm#is there a world food shortage

This clearly shows that in 1993 world food calorie production would only have been sufficient to provide the then population with adequate calories if the people were vegetarians.

When all of the factors such as, the economy, water supply, energy supply, and yes even oil supply [since most fertilizers are derived from petroleum], are added into the equation. The picture isn't all as rosy as you indicate.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm skeptical of those numbers because they do not mention the fact that much of the food consumed by livestock is not suitable for humans, so I presume it doesn't factor that into the calculations.

Also, there is a difference between how much food is produced and how much can be produced. Clearly, starvation exists in some places so we clearly are not feeding everyone. But that doesn't mean we couldn't if we wanted to.

 

[denverdoc]

Maybe you don't realize it, but that graph still supports my point. All the way up until the middle of last century, population growth was almost pure geometric, with doubling times of around 30 years (it is a little tough to see, but somewhere around 1960, the graph went from concave up to concave down). That time is over and it is very possible that the world population will not double again.

But as to whether it levels off at 8 billion or 12 billion, I didn't make a prediction. And in any case, there is a massive plague that is afecting the growth rate, but it is not factored into those numbers. That and the fact that I am optomistic that the current trend of rapid development will continue (developed nations are culturally inclined to have lower growth rates) is why I tend to see the lower estimates as being more likely. True, but it doesn't really affect what we are talking about here. The second sentence contradicts the first, but in any case it highlights a good point: people who think overpopulation is an issue tend to overlook the technological and economic factors that enable the population to grow.

Water right now in the US is a completely valueless throw-away commodity. That's partly because of the reality that it is (eventually) completely self-recycle-able, but as it becomes more scarce, its value will eventually go up to the point where it becomes economically feasible to recycle it.

Last month, I spent roughly $200 on heat and electricity for my house and iirc, about $15 on water. All of that water bill is in the delivery and billing. If the cost of water itself becomes a few cents a gallon that would double my bill, but for an extra $15 a month, I'm not even batting an eyelash - but that amount of money opens up whole new economic frontiers for water management.

Energy is more difficult since the cost is already significant, but nuclear power is not fundamentally more expensive than other forms of power - most of the cost is in the politics of building a plant, not in its operation. When the prices start to go up, the politics will go away proportionally and the overall cost of the energy will not change significantly.

That takes care of coal, but cars will be more difficult. Gas is still far too cheap in the US for other technologies to have a chance, but other technologies (and other alternatives) exist that could fill the void without too much trouble if gas prices suddenly quadruple (to bring them in line with what they are in Europe).

Not a chance. First off, its difficult to simultaneously argue for nuclear power and non-plolif/war on terror. The more the world used fissionable materials, the greater the likelihood of something really nasty happening. Look at Iran--they want to produce nuclear energy, and maybe bombs as well. Historically speaking, they have been pretty mellow, been something like 400 years since they agressed. But we all know they's love to have some parity--look at how nervous we got when Cuba had missiles.

But there are so many better ways of generating Kv, and if we take the effort to educate and build in enuf incentives--like making gas cost what is should. What bothers me at time is that you have this supreme optimism in capitalism, but seem afraid to let the big dog loose. You raise the price of petrol to the equiv of 5/gal, you would see instant greening in this country.

Consider the incentives to building a better mousetrap or solar cell. Battery technoogy is almost there. I know several folks living off the grid and very proud to have done so. That's capitalism:yankee ingenuity and the flexibility to make needed sacrifices.