An Inconvenient Truth

[Occhidiangela]

I agree with you that the Earth will shed some of its human load, due to frequent weather catastrophe's and famine.

Another reason to endorse Iran's bid for nuclear weapons. Load shedding. Nothing like the Four Horsemen to act as damper on Malthusian infestations of our fair planet. So, which 10% of the Earth's population do we need to downsize? <_<

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Another reason to endorse Iran's bid for nuclear weapons. Load shedding. Nothing like the Four Horsemen to act as damper on Malthusian infestations of our fair planet. So, which 10% of the Earth's population do we need to downsize? <_<

Occhi

Though I'll take population readjustment any way I can get it (after all, nature is not subtle; her usual ways involve floods, meteors, plagues, and other cataclysmic methods), I'd much prefer if we used our much vaunted intelligence to solve the problem in a controlled fashion. Less painful for all involved and the windfall for the undertakers would be spread out better:)

By the way, a 10% adjustment would be insignificant. What my numbers call for is a 90 to 99% adjustment to a sub billion world population. That would still makes us the most populous land dwelling species in our size range and would permit renewable resources (and recyclable ones, too) to be readily available for all. It's not how many people the Earth can support that matters, it's how many it can support at a good standard of living. If the whole world had the life style of the (rapidly vanishing) American middle class, we'd run out of raw materials in about a generation. Already we're substituting trash for applications where our parents and grandparents used decent materials. Look at furniture for example. No exposed wood, since the good wood has been harvested faster than it could regrow. So now everything is overstuffed (to hide the cheap pine frame) or plastic coated fiberboard. And that is just one of the many examples that you can observe on a Saturday 'shopping' trip (why do they call it 'shopping' when there's nothing on the list and nothing (other than impulse purchases) is bought; shouldn't it be a 'gawking trip? :wacko:)

Once when asked who we should kill to get down to the number (by a manager, of course. Typically, he could not understand a long term solution that took more than a week.) I replied, "Ask for volunteers, then kill everybody too selfish to contribute to the common good, that is, those who didn't volunteer. That would probably overshoot the necessary reduction, but that will take care of itself in a couple of generations."

By the way, to get to 10% of the present population in 100 years, we simply need an annual replacement rate of about -2.3%, something already being accomplished by the population of many industrial countries when the immigration from the third world breeders is adjusted for. Selling this idea to the breeder nations (usually the poorest and least able to support their high birth rate) would be the hardest part of the program. In nations where women use birth control pill containers as a calendar but do not actually take the pills, that might be a hard sell. As is so often the case, ignorance is the root problem and education is the only viable long term solution. So instead of wasting your money sponsoring some kid in Nicaragua who will only grow up to contribute to the problem, give your money to a group like Planned Parenthood which is actually trying to solve the problem.

The 1% figure is probably not doable in 100 years since it would require a rate of about -4.5%. However, that is probably close to the max, and a reduction to between 1 and 10% of the present population *is* reasonable, and to the advantage of all but the religious and political demagogues.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

The 1% figure is probably not doable in 100 years since it would require a rate of about -4.5%. However, that is probably close to the max, and a reduction to between 1 and 10% of the present population *is* reasonable, and to the advantage of all but the religious and political demagogues.

--Pete

The sales job is the key. Who should we assign that one to?

Choices abound:

1. How about the guys who convinced some millions of people that "terrorists" would happily go to Iraq and fight America's (very lethal) military rather than wander over our (unsecure) border and wreak havoc on an unmilitarized, albeit somewhat armed, civilian population? Those who mean America harm aren't idiots.

2. The guy who convinced anyone that Paris Hilton should make a music video. That's akin to hiring me as starting center for the Dallas Mavericks. :whistling:

3. The sales team that convinced Sony to pay them money for the marketing, to date, of the PS3. :lol:

Occhi

[Griselda]

That's akin to hiring me as starting center for the Dallas Mavericks. :whistling:

I would pay to see that. Maybe you're on to something! :P

[--Pete]

Hi,

The sales job is the key. Who should we assign that one to?

An intelligent, honest person willing to do that. I think the ghost of Diogenes is still trying to find one. So, maybe, we should just buy a charismatic demagogue. One that's honest in that he stays bought. Bunch of those are underemployed in cults and governments :P

That's akin to hiring me as starting center for the Dallas Mavericks. :whistling:

I'll second Griselda on that. You supply the bones, I'll bring the splints, pain pills and Guinness :lol:

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

I would pay to see that. Maybe you're on to something! :P

Maybe the GM for the Mavericks would have to be on something to make the offer. The predictable outcome would be a lot of ESPN talking heads quoting an infamous movie (Harrelson/Snipes) related to my death defying 9 inch vertical leap. Then again, with my flying elbows being a risk, NBA players would have to start wearing cups! :lol:

Occhi

[ETA]

In order to shed a ray of hope in the environmental wars I will tell a story.

When I was in my senior year (1985) of college a professor mentioned the deterioration of the ozone layer due to CFC's. Legislation was passed and newer non CFC refrigerants are now ubiquitous. Recently I read in the news that the ozone hole is healing itself.

[Occhidiangela]

In order to shed a ray of hope in the environmental wars I will tell a story.

When I was in my senior year (1985) of college a professor mentioned the deterioration of the ozone layer due to CFC's. Legislation was passed and newer non CFC refrigerants are now ubiquitous. Recently I read in the news that the ozone hole is healing itself.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html

To be taken with a grain of salt, the article is aimed at the political issue, the imbalance, of the Kyoto deal. While it provides an interesting counterpoint based on a local observation, it has the shortcoming of using a very short term trend, in geologic time, to project a long term "cooling." IIRC, some of the best CO2 studies were done in Antarctica, which makes this article seem a bit ironic.

The consideration that this article raises in my mind isn't that global warming must not be happening, but perhaps our data are skewed. Are the studies/effects predominantly concerned with the changes in the Northern Hemisphere? That is where most of the Earth's population lives, and where the bulk of the land mass is. How does that imbalance influence global climate? Are average temps and weather patterns in the southern hemisphere trending in the same direction as the Northern Hemisphere? How much cross flow is there in air masses between hemispheres? The heat output in the Northern Hemisphere, based on human population density, would be, I guess, about an order of magnitude greater than in the Southern Hemisphere.

Occhi

[pakman]

I think that if you look at points in the "Global Warming" issue you can see where some of the reasoning comes from. From studying civil engineering, I'm basically told to "pave the rainforest" and build until there is mo more land on which to build. But on the other side of things, the environmental engineering side, we have to worry about the impact that paving the rainforest will have. Before a road anywhere is built there are extensive studies on the impact it will have on the surrounding ecosystem and problems that it might cause. Building codes are there for a reason as are pollution controls. As for greenhouse gases and all this being the cause, I'm not so sure.

Strictly from a health standpoint releasing toxic gases into the air from a cement plant is not good for humans or animals regardless of where they are. Dumping waste chemicals into streams, rivers, etc. will affect groundwater and plant and animal life.

The logging industry plants many more trees than they cut. Trees like spruce, pines and fir (the large bulk of the lumber industry) grow relatively fast and can be harvested within 10 years. Other trees like Oak, redwood, etc, are much harder to grow and harvest.

Much of the construction industry's materials is recycled, is waste from other industry, or can be easily and cheaply obtained. Concrete, for example can be recycled and used in residential projects where super high-strength concrete is not an issue. Almost all the steel is sent to a foundry when a building is razed, this includes the rebars, girders, etc. Bituminous concrete roads use the materials from the bottom of the cracking tower in the separation of fossil fules, asphalt is the heaviest material and we mix it with various sizes of aggregate (rocks) to make roads. Cement can have slag from the making of steel used as an admixture along with other recycled materials to give various properties to the concrete.

I guess where I'm going with this is that there are efforts to reduce the impact of buildings, roads, etc. on the environment, but you only get the spin that the media wants you to see. You don't get what is really going on because they don't interview the people that are making the efforts, they jsut interview the people that get "results" that further their agenda.

[Occhidiangela]

I guess where I'm going with this is that there are efforts to reduce the impact of buildings, roads, etc. on the environment, but you only get the spin that the media wants you to see. You don't get what is really going on because they don't interview the people that are making the efforts, they jsut interview the people that get "results" that further their agenda.

Neat post. :) I will point out that all recycling efforts have an associated energy cost. Balancing that cost against the energy cost of harvesting "fresh from the ground" materials is no trivial problem. Which costs, to include the energy to get to work, is included in the total energy cost of a process? What is the thermal cost of choosing an ashpalt or concrete as a road building material? Reflection or absorption, what is the net effect on the local and Macro environment?

What "accounting rules" are the standard, and what are the loopholes? (GAAP have loopholes, I expect bounding any civil engineering problem creates a loophole of a sort.)

What is the "zero based" cost of recycling? Not poking recycling in the eye, I believe in it and was taught as a kid to "waste not, want not."

Occhi

[bernard shakey]

Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India.

I can't believe this moron uses a clear indication of global warming to assert that global warming is not hapening! It's well known that as the ice caps in the arctic regions melt, the cold water they shed is carried by the oceans streams to warmer climats where it cools the air there. This does not however, offset the fact that the overall temprature of the globe has risen some .8 degrees. In an eco system where a 3 degree rise would most likely spell disaster for a significant portion of the population, that is a very significant figure.

Wack jobs on either side of this "issue" aside I realy have to say I don't understand the debate. I mean witch one of these statements is plausably debateable? 1)the globe is warming 2)green house gasses contribute to warming 3)humans create greenhouse gasses 4)a warmer climate would be significantly inconveniant to owners of ocean front property and place unbearable pressure on remaining interior land masses.

Whether we can reverse this trend is a non issue , if all we can do is slow it down then that is what we must do.

Not only for the prevention of some distant future disaster but for the current human health disaster that is the toxic air we breath. the city I live in is quite beautiful after a snow storm... for about 12 hours ,till the snow turns black from car and industry emmisions. children are being born with alarming levels of asthma, allergies, and cancers because of the air and water qualities.

Politicians would have us talk our selves in circles here rather have us force them to come to the table with an actionable plan that could cost a corperation with campaign $'s some money. No way their going to change that as long as they can get away with it. Hate to beat a dead horse but bypartisan and grass roots is the only way we'll ever see a change.

By the way I havn't seen the movie , though I probably will once it makes it to the home market. In any event I doubt it would change my position much since I suspect I largly agree with the gist of it

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . I mean witch one of these statements is plausably debateable? 1)the globe is warming 2)green house gasses contribute to warming 3)humans create greenhouse gasses 4)a warmer climate would be significantly inconveniant to owners of ocean front property and place unbearable pressure on remaining interior land masses.

You left out the crucial assumption. Squeeze it in between 3 and 4: "Human activity is a (major) contributor to the process." It is exactly this assumption that the rational debate is about. If we're not a major contributor, then we can hardly (for technical reasons alone) control the process. And we do not have either the data or the models to justify a claim either way. If, on one side, there are the money grubbing corporations and their bought lap dogs the politicians, on the other side are the shrill Chicken Little's spreading their alarmist ignorance. And both sides are more interested in grinding their ax than in finding truth.

Whether we can reverse this trend is a non issue , if all we can do is slow it down then that is what we must do.

Not only for the prevention of some distant future disaster but for the current human health disaster that is the toxic air we breath.

Once again I ask, just what is so important in the universal and global scheme of things that *humanity* survive. If we're too stupid to see what needs to be done or too hedonistic to do it, then we deserve extinction because we're an evolutionary failure. If we take down some other species along the way, tough.

Politicians would have us talk our selves in circles here rather have us force them to come to the table with an actionable plan that could cost a corperation with campaign $'s some money. No way their going to change that as long as they can get away with it. Hate to beat a dead horse but bypartisan and grass roots is the only way we'll ever see a change.

I once read that "Politics is the art of the possible." Do you really think the tax payers want to fund programs to solve a poorly understood problem, which may be a non-issue in the first place, when they will not even fund the maintenance of existing and crucial infrastructure? Try rational thought and quit demonizing those who don't agree with you (and probably have a glimpse of a bigger picture than the knot hole you're looking through). Understand the issues before forming an opinion, or else you're just a sheep braying the nonsense of whatever demagogue appealed to you last.

--Pete

PS Get a spell checker and use it. It is irritating when a poster tries to check their spelling (as a courtesy to the reader) and has to ignore a dozen errors in the quoted part of the post.

[Vandiablo]

The "propaganda film" has some info along those lines....

The consideration that this article raises in my mind isn't that global warming must not be happening, but perhaps our data are skewed. Are the studies/effects predominantly concerned with the changes in the Northern Hemisphere? That is where most of the Earth's population lives, and where the bulk of the land mass is. How does that imbalance influence global climate? Are average temps and weather patterns in the southern hemisphere trending in the same direction as the Northern Hemisphere? How much cross flow is there in air masses between hemispheres? The heat output in the Northern Hemisphere, based on human population density, would be, I guess, about an order of magnitude greater than in the Southern Hemisphere.

The "propaganda film" has some answers to that, at least in terms of CO2 measurements.

Since the "current-condition" measurements first started about 50 years ago, they have been performed in remote areas of the Pacific in order to lessen the influence of factors of the land masses.

One of the things addressed in the film is that there is a yearly CO2 level cycle, easily visible on the graph as a zig-zag. What causes this cycle? Turns out that the Northern Hemisphere is better (so far) at mitigating CO2 buildup, because it has much more arable land mass than the Southern Hemisphere. It has a lot more vegetation (trees), and it reduces the CO2 levels each year as the sun provides more heat to the Northern Hemisphere (during northern summer). During northern winter, the sun gives more heat to the Southern hemisphere, which has less landmass, so less vegetation, so less CO2 mitigation.

This doesn't answer your questions, and you may have known this stuff already, but I thought that it was worth noting that the film does talk about some hemispherical issues.

The zig-zag, to me, shows that human activity is DEFINITELY affecting CO2 levels, through deforestation alone. (This isn't anything the movie says, but my own conclusion.) If there's that much difference just from the differing land masses, then the effects of deforestation should not only be definite, but measurable through mathematical inference. (Too lazy to find out if anyone has done this, tho.)

Regarding the film, though, one should remember that it is difficult to walk the line between too little and too much information (do we really want to sit through 498 conclusions??), and to keep it simple so that most people can understand the issue and yet not be condescending. (There is one cartoon used -- little girl with ice cream -- that's supposed to be a joke because it's so stupid, but it's just, well, stupid. It's suposed to be stupid, but I couldn't help but thinking, "that's stupid". You'll see what I mean. )

-V
Manager, Garden Gnome Team
The Forsaken Inn

[Vandiablo]

Gore interview on Daily Show 28th of June!! (reruns on 29th)

See for yourself this time. Jon Stewart interviews him Wednesday night, uh, that's today.

I think I could just -- oops I think I just did. Ick.

-V
Laundry Room Attendant
The Forsaken Inn

[Occhidiangela]

One of the things addressed in the film is that there is a yearly CO2 level cycle, easily visible on the graph as a zig-zag. What causes this cycle? Turns out that the Northern Hemisphere is better (so far) at mitigating CO2 buildup, because it has much more arable land mass than the Southern Hemisphere. It has a lot more vegetation (trees), and it reduces the CO2 levels each year as the sun provides more heat to the Northern Hemisphere (during northern summer). During northern winter, the sun gives more heat to the Southern hemisphere, which has less landmass, so less vegetation, so less CO2 mitigation.

The zig-zag, to me, shows that human activity is DEFINITELY affecting CO2 levels, through deforestation alone.

Which makes the Brazilian Rain Forest shrinkage a bit more troubling, given hemispheric imbalance balance. I am going to email my old weather expert buddy.

Occhi

[Vandiablo]

Of course, my conclusion depends on the arabable land mass thingie being true. I don't know how much scientific agreement there is about it, I don't remember if any attribution was made about it.

The film does touch on deforestation, but the only thing I remember them saying is something like "slash and burn" is a common practice and it's very bad atmospherically. So much better to use a hybrid bulldozer.

-V
Foreman
The Forsaken Inn

ps. Hybrid bulldozer is a joke.

[kandrathe]

Which makes the Brazilian Rain Forest shrinkage a bit more troubling, given hemispheric imbalance balance. I am going to email my old weather expert buddy.

Occhi

I would think that intentionally salting the oceans with iron dust would do far more by encouraging carbon absorbing plankton to sink, removing the carbon from the atmosphere. Make it an option for every transoceanic flight.

Future Pundit Article

I want to save the rain forests as well. In order to do that people need to learn to live and grow food within the ecosystem they live in, rather than try to turn all land into traditional "farm" land.

[Occhidiangela]

I would think that intentionally salting the oceans with iron dust would do far more by encouraging carbon absorbing plankton to sink, removing the carbon from the atmosphere. Make it an option for every transoceanic flight.

Future Pundit Article

I want to save the rain forests as well. In order to do that people need to learn to live and grow food within the ecosystem they live in, rather than try to turn all land into traditional "farm" land.

Try telling that to a developer, or someone who deals in cash crops for profit. It is in man's nature to shape his environment to suit his tastes, or hadn't you noticed the paint on the walls of your house, the roof, the gardening and lawn care you undertake, or the climate control devices that cost energy? ;) While we are at it, plant trees on all golf courses, that land is sub optimized for carbon dioxide harvesting! Did you move to a new street address? 1564 Lyric lane . . . Yeah, the house that looks like an Ivory Tower! :lol:

Thanks for the link, in any case.

EDIT/PS: When seeding the oceans with iron via plane or ship, you can compound the benefit by ensuring that air headed young lovelies are scheduled to be afloat in the same ocean area. This would allow them to rectify the mental handicap low iron seems to induce, get them on track to matriculate from bimbo to smart young lady, all while reducing global warming! Or, just have them have them date the Man of Steel . . . in theaters all over the country starting tonight! :whistling:

It's bird, it's a plane, no, it's Superman!

Occhi

Edited too many times due to failure to use Preview.

[Olon97]

One implication of the predominant global warming science that gets overlooked is that due to the high residence times involved (centuries for CO2), if the common scenarios are correct then we are facing the results of our actions 50+ years ago today, and the sorts of measures proposed by something as "ambitious" as the Kyoto protocol would do little, if anything, to help the situation in the medium-term future.

Basically, if this generation is screwed, then we're already on the ride with no functional accelerator or brakes. Marginal actions taken now would potentially work out to observable results for children/grandchildren. Even completely unrealistic actions taken now (end of all industrial CO2 emissions for instance) would take many years to have significant effects in these models.

Of course, that's not a very upbeat message and doesn't tend to motivate people (trying to motivate a polititian to make a change that will only have a demonstrable effect once they are long out of office is a tricky proposition).

I gave up on the environmental field shortly after graduating from MIT with an Environmental Engineering degree, as the "contract with America" revolution was already cutting funds to the industry and every place I was interested in working at was either conducting layoffs or in a hiring freeze and I had the ever so idealistic concern of feeding myself to worry about. I now work to develop ways for people to distract themselves from worrying, i.e. game development.

If people (and the elected representatives they vote for) wish to delude themselves into thinking everything is fine, believing fiction writers over scientific consensus, etc., you can't really stop them. Delusion is a very powerful coping mechanism when reality is an unpleasant picture and doesn't offer many answers. I try to reduce my personal energy consumption / CO2 emmisions as much as practical, but I don't really attempt to re-hash the climate issue with people who don't want to accept the science. My elected officials are already more environment friendly than the other guys I could vote for (with a chance of winning, I'm registered Green Party for laughs), and yet they spend very little time working on the issue, as best I can tell.

Back to the OP, I didn't see the movie, but given the spokesman I seriously it accomplished much more than preaching to the choir / overdramatizing facts that shouldn't need any drama or special effects to make their case. I don't know what spokesman would sway public opinion to effect meaningful change, but considering best case for "meaningful change" at this point is following Kyoto many years after the fact (or more likely some sort of Kyoto lite regime) I really don't care much whether the nation is half-assed or no-assed about it.

It takes something like a mushroom cloud or two skyscrapers falling to grab the (temporary) attention of most Americans. Slow, gradual threats working devastating changes over the course of decades just doesn't have as much traction to this ADD prone population. Maybe a bunch more Katrinas, but I doubt we'll be so "lucky".

At least, that's my cheery take on the subject.;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

One of the things addressed in the film is that there is a yearly CO2 level cycle, easily visible on the graph as a zig-zag. What causes this cycle? Turns out that the Northern Hemisphere is better (so far) at mitigating CO2 buildup, because it has much more arable land mass than the Southern Hemisphere. It has a lot more vegetation (trees), and it reduces the CO2 levels each year as the sun provides more heat to the Northern Hemisphere (during northern summer). During northern winter, the sun gives more heat to the Southern hemisphere, which has less landmass, so less vegetation, so less CO2 mitigation.

Unfortunately, that is a land centric view. There is a large amount of life, much of it vegetable, in the top 100 feet (35 meters) of the ocean. Just because plankton and krill are not as impressive as redwoods does not say that they are any less efficient at CO2 conversion. Probably, per acre, the small stuff is more efficient given that a much smaller percent of its mass is used only to support the working bits and that this reduction in infrastructure (branches, trunk, twigs) blocks less of the sunlight from getting to the lower levels (a forest on a bright summer day can be pretty dark below the canopy -- I know, I've spent a fair bit of time in them). Given the three to one ratio of water to land, the superiority of the Northern Hemisphere to regulate CO2 becomes even more questionable.

I have no links nor direct references for this conjecture, simply things I've pieced together from years of reading scientific publications. So, I might have it wrong or the information I based the opinion on may have since been shown to be invalid. However, I'd like to see some more definitive studies before I hop onto a "only the land mass is important, thus the Norther Hemisphere is more stable as to CO2" bandwagon.

Indeed, when one thinks about it, fishing may be a bigger contributor to CO2 emission than many of the other human activities that get a bulk of the blame. Reducing the number of the top of the food chain fish (those that are tastiest to human and thus greatly over fished) could allow a large population increase, down the food chain, of fish too small to be worth harvesting (at least prior to the Soylent Green phase of our population explosion). Many of these small fish are primarily herbivorous and their increase could severely reduce the amount of photosynthetic material available. The zig-zags in the plots could be cycles of reproduction (such as the lemming or locust cycles which are dynamically stable systems based on feedback and hysteresis) rather than (only) meteorological effects.

Quite often, the problem is that too many researchers are piss poor scientists and worse mathematicians. Their science is flawed because they go into a project with the intention of proving their prejudices rather than searching for the truth (As Winston Churchill said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.") Like the drunk who searches for his keys where there is light and not where he dropped them, they find nothing of value. And even those that do keep an open mind are so blinkered by the blinders of their narrow specialized education (actually 'training', they know everything about nothing, much like the NASA trained chimps) that they cannot relate to anything outside their field. The few who actually do look outside their field for fertile ideas are either ridiculed for being scatterbrained, or worshiped for 'major advancements' that were just old established technologies where they happened to look. Those that stick to their pigeon holes usually just find the same old bird-#$%&.

-Pete