- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
@ ET: I’m afraid you are mistaken, if you consider the available evidence.
The carrying capacity of the planet (without the FF bounty) was always around or below one billion people and when the oil and gas run out later this century the capacity will be much reduced as we will have exhausted many other of the planet’s natural resources and destroyed most of the ecosystems we depend on to support life. The longer we try to maintain the global population at this level, the greater the damage to the planet and the less chance our descendants have of avoiding extinction.
These are a couple of links that you may find helpful.
1. Megan Seibert & Bill Rees: Through the Eye of a Needle. 4.2 Population Reduction
2. Albert Bartlett: Exponential growth, population & energy
https://youtu.be/kZA9Hnp3aV4?si=Vhd3bCWnasHKWFKu
3. Tom Murphy: DotheMath blog. Metastatic Modernity Video Series:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/metastatic-modernity-video-series/
One more:
Bill Mitchell: We are 1.7 times over regenerative capacity and the world’s population must be reduced.
Michael, April 2, 23:50
– “Clark, let us give this a bit of brain work.”
Yes, brainwork; that was what I was trying to talk to you about, but you again, and as predicted, changed the subject. More brainwork than you or I could ever hope to clock up has already been done, and it is in public, in the scientific literature.
Why do you dismiss all this brainwork, ignore it, and present your own as superior? Do you also reinvent the wheel from first principles every time you plan to use your van?
I can just see you now Michael, in the drivers seat of your van giving the orders and explaining how much you know, the wheelless van body perched upon logs, and the rest of your family pushing it along and hauling the log most recently exposed at the back around to the front ready for the next few paces. Let’s go fishing!
ET, yes fascinating “new” stuff.
It would seem you can not have complex life, without Oxygen.
Complex life seems to be living in the two metre deep Oxygen zone around the Polymetallic nodules.
Some have postulated that complex life evolved around deep sea vents.
maybe, it was a coinsiding of both environments/
A huge Polymetallic Field, with deep Hydrothermal vents?Michael, it’s not new but newly discovered by humans. It’s been doing its thing for millions of years, if not hundreds of millions of years.
I’d say you can’t have complex (chemistry-based) life without a mechanism for transferring chemical energy.
Every argument you make against climate science is based on economics. When will you make a science-based argument?Clark, this evening I was having dinner with my eight year old granddaughter, we were discussing photosynthesis and gas exchanges in plants, they are teaching this stuff, today in primary schools.
Clark, almost nobody is still interested in Global Warming extinction.
There are wars going on in Palestine/Yemen/Ukraine/Burma/Sudan/Ethiopia and probably other places.
Most people want electricity, they want heat and fresh water and a sewage system and education for their children.
They really are not interested in people pontificating about the End of the World because of too much Carbon dioxide.
You are not winning this argument. You may assume that people who do not hold to the authodoxy of Global WEarming are stupid, ignorant twats.
You may be correct but you will not win those people, meaning 99% of the people of the world, over to your viewpoint.
They mostly do not care . They are not convinced the world will be ending, anytime soon.
You need to up your game.
Frighten the living shit out of them.Make them think in the next few years they will burn alive, if they do not believe.
ET,
I don’t think I am anti science. However, I don’t think more Carbon dioxide in the air is leading to the end of the world for humanity. I have been reading about Phytoplankton. Some, now suggest, that there could be one hundred thousand species.
Some like it cold. Some like it warm. Some like it hot. Some like it very salty, some like their water fresh. Some like it acidic, some alkaline. They are mostly very short lived, they can fairly quickly respond to changing environments, ( as a group). So, whatever humans do to increase Carbon dioxide, it seems a fair bet that certain species of Phytoplankton will fill those niches. There are mechanisms that take the carbon dioxide, down to the deep sea, effectively remove that CO2 from the short Carbon Cycle.On the Polymetallic nodules, until we learn a lot more, I do not think we should lift those nodules to make smart phones/laptops/electric vehicles, solar panels/wind turbines.
If they are producing Oxygen, and complex life is living in that deep oxygenated zone, then there may be, most likely, will be, implications for all life on Earth but that is not yet known.Michael, I agree, we should hold off on the deep sea mining until we understand the impact better. However, the drive to make money may not wait for that to happen.
This article on deep sea mining from New Atlas details a mining company’s pitch. Be sure to watch the video. And note all the buzz words.As for your take on CO2. Do you consider that climate change may make hot zones even hotter, wet zones even wetter, some zones may be colder (Ireland), some drier etc etc. It may not wipe out humanity but it sure will cause seismic disruption.
Also, despite all the feedback loops for CO2 it’s still rising in atmospheric concentration. How is that happening?ET, Carbon dioxide is still increasing in the atmosphere.
Despite the negative feedbacks.
Most probably it is because mankind is causing a lot of CO2 to enter the air, more than the negative feedbacks, are currently taking in.
I do expect, a very large part of that was contributed by the burning of Coal, that fuel which allowed almost all of the modern world to come into being.
In the U.K. the initiator land of the Industrial revolution, we do not these days use much Coal, we have plenty left in the ground. The U.S.A. Carbon going into the atmosphere is reducing.
It has been suggested mainly because they are using more Methane and less Coal.
As Donald Trump introduces his regime of Tariffs, probably, China will produce less, meaning they will use less Coal.
I understand that about half the world’s consumption of Coal, is China and India.
India will continue to increase how much Coal they consume for the next fifty years.One main factor is bad land use.
Clear felling old growth forest to grow grass to feed animals, will release more Carbon that it used to capture.
Concreting over much of the world, stops that top soil from absorbing CO2, presumably for as long as the concrete covers the land. Modern agriculture, denudes the soil of many species. The top soil should be holding many times the Carbon that resides in the atmosphere. So, reverting to organic agriculture, could redress this balance.
Planting rows of nut and fruit trees, alongside vegetables, will help retain Carbon, within the top soil.How hot will it get?
Cutting down swathes of forests makes the weather more variable. The land is more susceptable to water run off.
More likely to not retain the top soil, so degrading the land. Trees should be removed in small lines or small patches, retaining the soil organisms in the top soil.
In short, we need to be more sympathetic to the land.Michael,
We exist on a planet thanks only to a delicate balance of factors that make earth a habitable place for life as we know it. Even without human intervention, that balance disappears and has done so several times during our planet’s history, whether it be intrinsic – natural disasters & etc; or extrinsic – asteroid impact, solar CME etc. We have enjoyed a period of relative acquiescence – but it wont last forever.
What fails me is humanity has known how fragile that balance of life is from an ecological perspective for many, many centuries. Even in recent times – half a century ago – the message was regularly reinforced into school kids on trips to the outdoors; ‘Leave the place in the same condition as you found it’.
North American Indians respected the seventh generation doctrine – imagine that today where money and profit predicates all major decisions.
You often attempt to mitigate human impact on the environment by mitigating our negligence and destruction with natural or celestial disasters – we really haven’t been able to compete with those until the FF bounty provided the necessary means for self destruction population overshoot and our industries and science.
Our atmosphere offers only a few thousand feet of air with sufficient oxygen to breathe. The thin blue line when looking at earth from space. Beneath that – paradise – as far as its inhabitants are concerned. Or most of them except a few selfish, stupid, hairless apes who really should have known better.
You say we should be more sympathetic to the land. What could you do to achieve that?
Well, I would note vote Labour.
I would not build more concrete runways, I would not aim to increase air traffic/air travel.
I would attempt to get international agreement to put fuel duty on the aviation fuel.
I would aim to stop unwanted immigration.
I would not try and force small family farms out of business, so that their land could be used to build one and a half million extra houses. I would encourage farms – to grow food.
I would scrap Net Zero.
I would try to influence the population to be happy with less “stuff”
I would attempt to stop mindless advertising, such that people almost feel, they must buy useless stuff, they do not need.I would not panic about Global Warming. Possibly the world is one or two degrees warmer than it was a few hundred years ago. People seem to be coping with a slightly warmer world. There is now more than enough food being produced for the world, partly because CO2 has greened the earth.
Partly because of different crop types, partly because of irrigation.
As I have just written, we should take more care of our soils.
Healthy soils, take in more Carbon dioxide.
Ruined soils take in less Carbon dioxide or even release CO2.Michael, the people you quote with approval, and the people you link to – they disagree with you about everything except the effects of emissions.
You are being conned by the unscrupulous. The reason they want to burn more fossil fuels is to do more of all the things you want less of. They want more war, more plastic toot, more forests cut down, more air travel, more abuse of the soil, etc. etc. More of everything that makes them yet more money (of which they have oodles already).
You’re being a fool because you fight against everyone but them, and it’s your eight year old granddaughter who’s going to have to live with the consequences.
Michael,
I doubt if you could achieve any of these things – you’re not in any position to do so, unless you’re really Ed Milliband’s sobriquet!
I meant, what can YOU do in your own personal life to be “more sympathetic to the land”?
You’ve used soil degradation as an example, so perhaps you might identify some of the activities YOU partake that contributes to the problem. If you have a dog or cat, do you use fipronel or imadacloprid for flea treatment? Can you stop using it? What about plastic waste? Next time you visit the supermarket and paid for your items, remove all plastic where possible and leave it in a cardboard box for the shop to dispose of. Accepted it’ll still end up on a landfill somewhere, but if enough of us did the same, the retailers will soon get the message and make alternative provisions. Do you drive a car or take flights still? Are you a member of a local environmental group where you can volunteer to collect litter and rubbish from parks and beaches and the nearby countryside? Some groups protest and take collective action against the worst polluters – intensive poultry farms for example. Would you consider taking part?
The latter are positive action you can take – but it is equally important that you determine what of your current activities contribute to the damage to the environment and stop doing them. Over to you.
Michael,
Please take a quarter hour from your busy life and listen to David Attenborough’s lecture at the RSA from 8 years ago. Apologies if you’ve seen it before. If not, you might want to think about his suggestions that ordinary concerned citizens like you can do to bring awareness to the driving factor in our troubled world. It might also provide some food for thought about the environment too.
Best
Shibboleth,
I have opened my heart several times to this forum.
I have only once in my life been on a holiday to a different continent = Asia, that was when the Soviet Union, still existed, which I visited.
I have flown a few times to Scotland from Southern England, for important family events.
I mostly walk or cycle.
I do own a small 22 year old car.
I don’t use it that much.
I have been in an out door environmental group for almost thirty years.
I live in a very small house.
I consider i am very modest in my purchasing.
No, I do not like everything encased in plastic, it certainly was not like that when we were growing up.
I do not have any pets, nor do i want any pets.
My computer was home made by a neighbour, using (some) repurposed parts about fourteen years ago.
My last cycle lasted more than twenty five years, at the start of the Pandemic, I purchased a new cycle.
Other than killing myself, i do not seeHow I could live more modestly.
I have no fear of Global Warming, whatsoever.
Yes it would be a reasonable position for us to trend away from Carbon Fuels.
However, for the united kingdom to be the most obsessive country on Net Zero, is mindless self destruction.
The world is about to be plunged into a great recession.
We still need jobs for working age people.
That should mean people making useful things – like refrigerators, washing machines, wireless, telephones, footballs, swimming pools, cycle lanes, beds, wardrobes and Electricity Grid Infrastructures.
Hospital scanners, electric light bulbs and gardening tools.
Steel, Aluminium, Tungsten, Kaolin.
That sort of stuff.Anything else you wish to know?
When I do my washing, I hang it on the washing line in the garden, I have never owned a tumble dryer.
With my environmental group, we try to mend our tools, when they snap, in a Men’s Shed, for nothing.
Some of our specialist tools, we have made for (almost) nothing.
like making a “Log-Arch” out of scaffolding and a discarded forklift solid tyred wheels.
We did make that in my mates steel yard, using all his equipment, with him doing the welding, for nothing.Tomorrow,
our environmental group, will be making two-rail-post and rail-fence, out of sweet chestnut that we have felled in the council owned woods. mostly, they will be made using bow saws, axes and froes, with wooden clubs ( hand made from tree wood), just like the olden days, all good fun, free, out in the fresh air. The public, often tell us how they appreciate what we are doing.We cleave the “logs” trees, using steel wedges and sledge hammer.
We use carpenter’s chalk line for accuracy.
It works quire efficiently, just a bit of knowledge and some human physicality.Almost every week, recycling centers catch fire, often, very large fires.
Paris
Quote
Geoffrey Boulard, mayor for the affected 17th arrondissement, told BFM television. He said 31 employees were present when the blaze started in a recycling zone in a basement
“where there was the most combustible material”I wonder what that combustible stuff actually contained?
“I have opened my heart several times to this forum….Anything else you’d like to know?”
Michael,
You are a model citizen that many should aspire to. I’m sure you must grow your own food too. Fantastic! I presume you watched the David Attenborough lecture on population growth and overshoot – and can join the dots where ecological destruction is concerned. If everyone lived a modest and humble life like yourself, then the challenges facing us would not be quite as severe. So what could YOU do to help? Some public speaking extolling your way of life perhaps? An essay or book? I have little faith in the political elite of today, but have enormous faith in the ordinary person of moral, ethics and good character with the initiative and drive to help others to whom they owe nothing.
What say you?
I see glenn_nl
is champing at the bit, again.
What does he mean by “Climate Denialists”?Is he so unhinged, that he can not stand anybody holding a view, that is not a clone of his own view.
That is paranoia. (99% of the people currently alive are not interested in the views held by glenn.)
Howling at the wind, will make very little difference. Go shout at India, go shout at China, go shout at Vietnam, go shout at Congo.
See where it gets you.
It will get you nowhere.
People want food, shelter, electricity, sewage, schooling, health care and functioning economies.
What they do not want, is what glenn is offering.
It almost does not matter, if global warming is real or not.
Most people are not buying in to the end of the world.Mea Culpa. Way to go Michael.
