Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall Worldwide In 2009
Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that the good news is that emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell 1.3 percent compared with emissions in 2008 primarily because of the global economic downturn and an increase in carbon-dioxide uptake by the oceans and by plants on land. One big factor was La Niña, a natural seesaw shift in climate that takes place across the tropical Pacific every three to seven years, where the climate is cooler and wetter over large regions of land in the tropics, encouraging plant growth in tropical forests. However the bad news is that even with the decrease in emissions the overall concentration of CO2 rose from 385 ppm in 2008 to 387 ppm in 2009, as concentrations continue to rise even as emissions slip because even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas. Many countries have agreed in principle to try to stabilize emissions at 350 ppm by century's end, which would result in a 50 percent chance of holding the increase in global average temperatures to about 2 degrees C over pre-industrial levels."
After all, it's much warmer where I am right now than it was at the same time 4 years ago. 4 years ago in my region, we had a blizzard on Thanksgiving. This year, it's about 50F. Clearly, the globe is warming uncontrollably, and since we all know CO2 emissions are causing climate change, CO2 emissions must have gone up.
(No, I'm not being serious)
I am officially gone from
And temperatures in South Carolina become more like those in Maine! Wait, that's not how it works...
weinersmith
OR IS IT???????
weinersmith
The temporary decrease in heavy industry (and thus, fall in CO2 emissions) due to a slow economy is another reason to take advantage of the situation and re-enter with a strong economy with renewable technologies in place. Unfortunately, not many people are down for spending the money to invest in a down economy. You can bet we'll see a sharp uptick in relative emissions over the next few years as more and more areas "rebound" with the same old technologies driving it.
It's always confirmation bias!
It's supposed to be 16 degrees tomorrow night, here in the southern California high desert. This is about 6 weeks before we'd normally reach such low winter temps (and most years it never gets below 21 degrees at the very worst). We've already had snow down to 2700 feet, also vanishingly rare this time of year.. in fact the first time I'd seen either in 26 years here.
Did I move back to Montana, and miss the trip??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Which is just a way of telling you "go to hell" using different words.
I am a long time treehugger and hated to see any harvesting of any forests at all. This is because I feel that trees are the best way of combating climate change - they regulate climate in the surrounding area. When the Romans attacked Jerusalem in 70 AD and cut down all the olive trees around the city for combat fortifications, the water retention of the soil was reduced significantly. The place referred to as the land of milk and honey became a desert wasteland. However, in recent years I have begun to acknowledge the importance of cutting trees as much as I hate it. The main threats to the forest now are invasive species (Think Chestnut blight, Gypsy moth, etc) and brush fires. The Forest Service's budget is TINY in comparison to the cost of these threats, and so selective harvesting of trees to make up for budget shortfalls has become a necessary evil. It is better to remove a few trees in one area and be able to fight off threats to the forest as a whole than to have an entire species (Chestnut, Oak, dogwood) die off reducing diversity.
Another plus is that any harvested trees are SEQUESTERING CO2. This is important - a dead tree either rots or is burnt in a fire RELEASING the stored CO2. As part of a dining room table, the Carbon just stays there. The answer is MORE trees and MORE harvesting of trees, as must as I hate the latter part.
Billings, MT is reporting -2 deg F (-18 deg C) as I type this. I expect 16 deg F would be a heat wave right now.
But I'm 100% sure that I'd prefer to live in a world where we don't give trillions to greenie scam artists in return for them telling us that they can fix that pesky human inclination to have kids and give them a decent standard of living.
We need to lose about 3 billion people, then keep the numbers down there until we get our eggs out of this basket. Anyone not engaged in trying to find a way to achieve that solution humanely is just profiting from the problem.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
According to the UN, the efforts governments are making to curb CO2 emissions are a far cry from what is needed to keep climate change within acceptable limits: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11813578
That might help reduce global warming.
Makes sense, no?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"...emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell...because of...an increase in carbon-dioxide uptake by the oceans and by plants on land." How does an increase in the uptake have any effect on what is actually emitted? Does it have an effect on the concentration? Yes, I can see that. But I can't understand how it changes what is being generated.
FoxNewsHeadline("[...] emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell 1.3 percent compared with emissions in 2008 primarily because of the global economic downturn [...]")
=>
"Bush's efforts to fight global warming continue to be more effective than anything the Democrats have done."
Of course my argument is completely bogus - that was the point. The "(No, I'm not being serious)" was to indicate that I was aware of all the problems you mentioned, and was making an attempt at satirizing exactly the stupidity you describe.
I am officially gone from
That's the joke. Really, you hit it right on the head. It's exactly like that. That's why it's funny. Or at least it was, till you showed up.
The market sure as hell fell more than 1.3%, would we really want to have a market running at a level equal to a 20% co2 decrease?
While i will obviously be rated trolls, some would like to see this scenario enforced globally trough opressive laws today, personally i think we should let the zombies run the apocalypse, not the enviromentalists.
Yeah, my friends along the Hi-Line were complaining about it being below zero already. Snow all over the state, too.
A few pictures for those who have no idea where we're talking about: http://www.stephenlehmer.com/Montana%20Hi-Line/Montana%20Hi-Line.html
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
More carbon is being released than absorbed by the biosphere however. The last time atmospheric CO2 decreased year-to-year (there is a slight seasonal decrease every year) was in 1992 due to massive volcanic eruption. Its acids scrubbed out some of the CO2.
recession -> CO2 emmissions drop,
so,
mandate CO2 emmissions drop -> recession
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
>>>wholly inaccurate in your portrayal of the argument presented by global-warming proponents.
Not really. I remember three years ago when Washington and Philadelphia had an unusually warm and almost snow-free winter, and NBC, ABC, et cetera had their reporters discussing how this is clear evidence that global warming is happening." And no it wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark, but repeated day after day, with an "in depth report" on the warm winter during one of those days.
So wholly inaccurate? Nope. Very accurate, because that's what actually happens. If we have a warm winter this year, just pay attention. The anchors on the National TV will be discussing how this demonstrates global warming is real, just as they did three winters ago.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You can thank La Niña, the souring oceans (and dying corals), and a slight downturn in deforestation due to the bad Economy. Can we reflect on this story again next year after this "improvement" has its chance to work its magic?
From one who lives in this state...maybe rethink that wish. Oh yes the winters are mild here, sort of, but do you really want day after day of unrelenting 95 degree temps with 80-90% humidity in the summer? Day after day of glorious sunshine that after two weeks begins to rot your brain and you ponder when did this state become a desert? Even the winter is looney here. One day 70, the next 20. Hell, I carry two types of coats just to deal with temperature ranges in a given day.
Sure, Maine's cold many months out of the year, yes, the water will freeze "junk" quicker then co2 (make the mistake of jumping in with no warning, fool of a took), but at least you don't live in a desert that fakes like it is a nice southern environment. Besides, if you get our weather, we get what? Equatorial New Guinea temps....No thanks!
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Well, for every Fox News story stating global warming is wrong because of cold weather, there's a couple of NBC/ABC/newspaper/etc stories which discuss heat waves and the like and say that they are evidence of global warming, and two or three politicians using it to justify some measure.
[Citation needed]
Seriously. I want to read them.
While you're not being serious, you are being wholly dishonest and wholly inaccurate in your portrayal of the argument presented by global-warming proponents. It's akin to the Fox News assholes gleefully commenting on the storm that hit DC last winter, stating that Al Gore had been proven wrong, because it snowed. In D.C.. In the winter.
Thanks for stating the obvious, Captain "Apparently".
We can't "stabilize emissions at 350 ppm". We can stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 350 ppm by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 85%. We can do this by a combination of obtaining energy from sources other than fossil fuels (nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, etc.) and using the energy more efficiently (CFL and LED lighting, increased insulation, hybrid vehicles, etc.).
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Short and Sweet:
* An increase in carbon-dioxide uptake does not cause emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas to fall.
* Emission units are kg/s not ppm.
* Primarily should be followed be ONE cause not TWO
There's a difference between television sensationalism with the sole intent of capturing the interest of ignorant viewers, and actual scientific discourse. I don't think anyone qualified to have an opinion in the matter is taking the position dkleinsc parodied.
People die on their own. Life has a 100% mortality rate. Wait a while, don't replace 3 billion people that died of natural causes (i.e. life) and you've lost 3 billion from the total population without actively killing anyone.
He didn't specify how to get the population down to that level.
Since some studies show that the birth rate drops as societies become more prosperous, maybe he's proposing to make us all rich. I could get onboard on that.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Wow, I wish those were wallpaper sized. They're stunning.
Yes and that's what "dkleinsc" was making fun of. Television sensationalism and other pundits.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Hey! IT snowed in Argentina last June! and we all know it's HOT down there in South America! and then it happened in the Summer months of June!!!!
SKY FALLING!!!!!!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The beauty of calling it "global climate change" is that the temperature doesn't matter. We had a cold winter with lots of snow last year, and they blamed that on CO2 emissions as well.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Apparently, Vanessa Williams never went to Argentina. IRONY FAIL.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Their news reporting is usually pretty good. In this case, however, there seem to be major problems with the article.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Emissions were reduced due to economic decline.
Atmospheric levels were reduced due to a climate cycle that increased absorption.
Atmospheric levels actually increased due to increased emissions.
So emissions went down and up, and levels went down and up. All in the same year.
Science. We could use some here.
I see why you are getting confused. The climate is a complicated system. There isn't just one mechanism controlling the global temperature. The one you always hear about in the news is CO2 (which is a complicated system of its own), but as you have learned here today, there are other factors like the variations in the sun's output and La Niña & El Niño. El Niño was the reason that 1998 was so hot (which is why if anyone tries to use that year to argue either for or against climate change then you know that they are being deliberately misleading).
To explain how CO2 emissions can go down and yet the temperature can go up (ignoring the other factors), imagine that you have a bath filled with water. If you pull the plug then the water level drops. But if you turn on the tap to pour in the same amount of water that is going down the drain, then the water level will remain steady. It is not that the water stops going down the drain, but that the lost water is being replaced. This represents the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
CO2 is absorbed out of the atmosphere by various means, and more is emitted into the atmosphere from various sources - some of which are man made.
Back to the bath, what happens if you turn up the tap so that more water is going into the bath than can go down the plug hole? The water level rises. If you put in an extra 5% of water then the level will increase by that amount because it simply has nowhere else to go.
So does the water level go down if you reduce the water emissions by 1.3%? No, because you are still adding in 3.7% more water than the equilibrium. That is why your quoted text said "even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas".
That quote is a bit misleading, because as I said before there are many sources of CO2, so it is not just the amount pumped out by humans that is causing the problem. Some people have tried to use this fact as a reason for not doing anything about global warming, saying that it is not man's fault. It is a dubious argument, and in the end a pointless one. If we want to control the environment then the easiest solution is to adjust the portion of CO2 that is generated by man.
Total air carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels fell. Those levels are carbon emissions - carbon consumption.
Carbon consumption is done by green plants, primarily trees, and bodies of water, primarily the ocean.
The ocean is getting overloaded.
Forests are getting cut down without re-planting in the third world.
Carbon emissions are primarily done by man-made processes and volcanoes. The big man-made processes are:
concrete (it emits a lot while curing), which is increasing, especially in China
burning of forests / jungles
coal / gas / oil burning
So your interpretation that carbon emissions are falling is probably true, but from the above, it does not make sense.
wake up and hold your nose
Not kill them, I think what his point is we do too much to make it safe for the stupid people.
WE don't "cull the herd" anymore. The complete morons of the world are protected from danger. And the ones that do hurt themselves from being stupid, they are saved from death.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"Forests naturally deal with fire quite well thank you"
Agreed, but that's not the point the gp was trying to make. The average stable forest isn't the o2 source or co2 sink that some environmentalists would have you think. Only by removing matter from the forest and using it/burying it where it won't rot will it sequester co2 thereby reducing humanity's effect.
The point being a stable forest releases co2 from wood rotting or being burnt. If it absorbed co2, then its mass would constantly increase. What is actually happening in a stable forest is that there is an almost perfect balance and therefore a healthy stable forest is more or less carbon neutral.
Now if you were to occasionally cut down the wood and put it to other uses (e.g. housing or tables as gp mentions) and allow new growth, then you have a co2 capturing scheme. If you cut it down and build concrete buildings in it's place or just let it turn to desert/scrubland then you're the human race and deserve what you'll get...
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Umm, you are talking about the Christian Science Monitor as if it is an outlet for Scientology (it isn't). While I will agree with you on anything and everything negative you have to say about Scientology, this isn't it.
In fact, the website publication has always made an effort to remain non-sensationalist and publish reliable information, rooted in science and not religion (IE you won't find articles about creationism in there). I wouldn't decry this article either - although it is not very well represented in the summary on this page. But at least check out the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christian_Science_Monitor.
Sooo, perhaps you'd like to remove that foot from its current location?
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
Sounds normal for where I live. Well, other than the fact that it's usually more humid than that in summer. And a bit warmer....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Difficult to cite television shows. But just last week NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Syfy, Bravo, Telemundo, etc celebrated "green week" and it included some of those tales about how heat waves prove global warming.
I also thought it was funny when they said last winter's record snowfall proved global warming as well. Something about warmer air holding more snow. Yeah. Sure. Except it wasn't a record anywhere but Baltimore and DC. Elsewhere like PennsylvaniA the snowfall was not unusual, AND the record was set in the 1950s (5 feet).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There's no question mankind has abused the environment, but it's a slippery slope towards government mandated environment control. Anyone who has studied formation of tyrannies knows that it always starts with something seemingly harmless that removes previous freedoms, and just exponentiates from there.
No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
Christian Science is also pretty goofy. Many members believe that all illness is curable by belief and prayer. One time my Dad was dating a Christian Scientist, and she initially refused to go to a doctor after she broke her leg in a skiing accident. After a few days of excruciating pain, she finally realized that having the leg set and immobilized was probably the best idea.
But, you're right, reporting from The Christian Science Monitor is usually pretty good. My dad was surprised when he realized this, of course!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Thanks for the explanation. I actually didn't even bother to reference temperature, since the article was well into explaining how emissions were reduced but levels were still up, that emissions were down because of diminished economic activity and that levels were reduced because of cooling that inspired vegetation which absorbed more CO2 than usual, and the apparent conclusion that levels increased because generation and absorption both increased, all because while generation was down, it was actually up.
Yup. It made no sense to me either. The answer is to trust them.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think it says somewhere there that he sells prints. But.. here's a much better site for photos of the lesser-known reaches of Montana, and a good starting point for the Hi-Line area:
http://www.montanapictures.net/tiber-reservoir-montana.htm
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Well that's true, but when claiming that we need to "lose" half the populace, I'd appreciate a little bit of a disclaimer least people get all eugenicsy.
And getting at a deeper issue, overpopulation is not the problem. People are a resource. They can convert food, shelter, security, and entertainment into real meaningful productive work that helps everyone more then it costs everyone. If that wasn't true, then society is a farce.
Now, pollution and emission are externalizations of factories, cars, farms, and whatnot. Those can be dealt with, but it takes real meaningful productive work.
So libertarians are for the draft and enforcing birth control when they actually have to solve problems? I'm sorry, I really don't like to be the voice against moderation, but if you think that the world is overpopulated, it needs fixing, and to do that the government needs to outlaw having multiple babies, then you're not really libertarian. I know it's not an all or nothing sort of thing, but you're arguing for the draft and government control of people's reproduction rights.
You need some practice in reading comprehension (as do most news reporters and slashdot submitters).
It's easy:
The rate at which we added CO2 to the atmosphere went down.
The rate at which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere went up.
Those two changes combined were not enough to lower the rate of pumping CO2 into the air below the rate that nature can remove it, so the actual amount of CO2 in the air went up.
Science, it's already being used here.
The Christian Science Monitor is a well respected newspaper, no matter what people think of the Christian Science religion.
And Christian Science has nothing to do with "e-meters" or Scientology.
I'm making up a list,
Of those that won't be missed...
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
When AGW deniers claim that it's hopeless to cut carbon dioxide emissions because it relies on every country doing so, I propose this idea. Of course, it's instantly shot down as also being obviously hopeless by those same deniers. It seems like it would work to me.
As far as growing forests to take up CO2 goes, that won't do much good. When the trees die and rot the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere. You need to cut the trees down and bury them so the carbon is sequestered. Still, it's an inefficient way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are artificial chemical processes that are about 1000 times more efficient than plants, although these have not been proven to scale up or be cost effective.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Not that actually writing an understandable article has any purpose here.
I don't think the author really meant for us to understand.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Wait, so you're telling me I should believe you over the consensus of 1,000+ scientists? *Nelson from the Simpson's Voice* HAHA!
Well, let's keep to the scientific accuracy meme here: "Cold" does not equal "Snow." At very cold temperatures, it won't snow. Ask anyone who lives in the upper Midwest. It is only at moderately cold temperatures that you actually get snowfall. So, if a region that has historically not seen snow around Jan/Feb because it's usually somewhere around -20 or so, starts exhibiting a pattern of snow, this does not prove that the region is now colder. In fact, it's evidence that the region is now probably warmer.
While that does not in itself prove warming on a global scale, the fact (Fact, not opinion, and not television sensationalism) that the ice caps and glaciers are melting does indicate that it is warmer. That doesn't mean it doesn't still get cold, even where the glaciers are, but it means the number of below freezing days are fewer, giving the glacier more time above freezing to melt. That's really not all that hard to comprehend. What's harder for most people to understand is that we're not talking about an overall average climate change of large amounts. Average warming by just a few degrees is enough to get us in trouble.
The fact is, as will be supported by any just about any climatologist not employed by an energy company, that global warming does exist. Whether or not it's caused by man is up for a bit more debate, though it's pretty inconceivable that a species could balloon from around 600 million or so in 1700 to nearly 7 billion now, and in that time that species has gone from riding around on horses to putting billions of cars on the road, planes in the sky, ships on the water, etc, all of which burn carbon-based fuel, without having some sort of impact on the environment.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
+1.
People who are against population control are Cold-hearted. The US is projected to be ~600 million by 2050 and the EU will be almost 1000 million. Due to an oil shortage (raising prices to ~$1000 a barrel) there will be a widespread shortage of food in people's homes, and millions of Americans and Europeans will starve.
People who choose this future are cold hearted. A wiser course is to limit the amount of babies produced so population will (1) hold steady from 2010-30 and then (2) go down to around 200 million by mid-century. To choose a future with unrestrained births, where millions of people will be starving is the ultimate inhumanity.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And since a future Idiocracy is a horrible world, we should only allow the smart people to breed.
OR, since the future is apparently doomed to wide-spread starvation and apocalyptic nightmares, how about we simply stop breeding all together and avoid all that misery.
But seriously, as an alternative, how about I choose a future in which there's plenty of food, energy is derived from renewable resources, pollution is kept in check, and doomsayers are laughed at. I think anyone who chooses otherwise is a little cold hearted myself. But what's creepy and evil is when you start viewing other people as a burden, rather then a resource.
Emissions per square kilometer will result in increased economic migration to lower population-density countries (such as, say, the entire west.)
Why should I stay around in a crowded place being held down to a lower standard of living by a lower personal emissions cap?
Emissions per capita is the only fair way to do it, unless you are saying some people, depending on their place of origin,
are inherently worth less than other people, and that they don't deserve the same rights as other people. Is that what you're saying?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Unfortunately, that won't happen with all of the pro-corporate trade laws. I think it's actually illegal to levy tariffs like this under WTO membership rules. I think the Bush administration got sued for trying to use tariffs to protect US steel manufacturing.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I mean has anyone ever considered the cost-benefit of massive CO2 reductions? It is painfully obvious how western technologically advanced civilization is dependant on cheap, reliable and extensive power generation in the form of electricity. Since the beginning of industrialization that has been (and actually still is) fossil fuels. What would happen if all that cheap power generation capacity was replaced with expensive and unreliable wind/solar/tidal power generation capacity? Just as a hint, I recommend you take a look at what massive deployment of wind and solar has done to electricity prices in Spain and what kind of money has been thrown at it in the form of government subsidies.
Now, this is not to say that renewables may not a viable option in the future, I am just saying that with the technology that we have and with the limitations that those power generation methods have, investing in green power is an economical suicide as well as ruinous to the entire concept of western well-being and societal development. As price of electricity goes up, the standards of living and quality of life will decrease and industry will start moving to a country that seems to have a more reasonable take on the role of energy in society (read: China). I can almost see the Chinese political elite dying of laughter as they distantly observe the western society ruin itself with our eco-madness.
Next, let's look at the properties of CO2 itself. It is a trace gas, harmless to humans in concentrations of less than 1% (10000 ppm) and enhances plant growth. The only negative thing about it currently is the theory that it is the sole cause of the last 100 or so years of warming and that the warming is self-reinforcing (more CO2 warms the climate, which releases more CO2, which warms the climate more ad infinitum). It is curious why none or very little of the warming is generally attributed to natural causes or cycles, especially since in the last 10 years the rate of warming has plateaued to about +-0 degrees. As far as I understand it, even though a short interval in climatological timescales, this throws a serious wrench in the theory of ever-increasing warming due to CO2.
Another thing to consider is the 2-degree value that has been arbitrarily picked as the threshold value of warming that we should try to avoid. Why 2 degrees and not 1 or 3? Who's to say 4 degrees of warming won't be beneficial and increase the amount of farmland? Doesn't warmer climate mean higher moisture capacity and perhaps more rain? I am far from convinced that 2 degrees is some kind of magical value that we should try to stay under, especially at any cost.
And finally, nature is always changing. Why should the current state of nature be any better than a warmer one? Why does the theoretical man-made warming necessarily make nature a worse place and the planet worse off than without it? As an example, many times I hear the number of extinct species per day quoted as some kind of number to be sorry for. As species are destroyed, be it naturally or caused by humans, new (or old) ones will take their place and nature will evolve as it always has. It can of course be argued that chopping rain forests for profit is immoral and perhaps even criminal, but attempting to justify those opinions on irrelevant statistics or FUD of the destruction of Earth is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and should be pointed out as such.
Life has a 100% mortality rate.
- are you certain about that? There were about 100 Billion people on this planet, when they are all added up, but today there are about 7Billion who are still alive.
I'd say that certainty of mortality can be calculated to somewhere near 93%.
It's true, statistically speaking!
You can't handle the truth.
"If we want to control the environment then the easiest solution is to adjust the portion of CO2 that is generated by man."
Why would you say that? CO2 extraction is not that complicated...
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
>>>how about I choose a future in which there's plenty of food, energy
This future does not exist. When the oil becomes scarce, there's nothing to replace it. Sure we have solar but you'd have to pave-over half of the States with panels to get the same amount of energy that oil provides us, and since that's impractical, the US will be suffering an "energy drought" and have to revert to 1800s-style living (and population will shrink rapidly to ~100 million via starvation).
I'm sorry you want to stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and deny this will happen, but doing that won't make it go away.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I used to love the CS Monitor. Historically, it has been one of the best news sources around. I think the last year or two the quality of reporting has really gone downhill. It always seems dumbed down like they are trying to compete with CNN.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Yea, because all other human history and inherent traits would suggest that giving up is better then fixing the problem before or when it happens.
Here is a hint, most all of the things in the world as you know it today, are a result of someone fixing the problems of the past. I suspect the future would be much different then you theorize as well.
What they said about the record snowfall in DC is that it did nothing to disprove global warming. A little different meaning than your take. As you pointed out it was not a regional record. Warmer air does hold more water vapor which can lead to greater precipitation. Have you ever noticed that it usually doesn't snow much when it gets really cold, say below 10F. The colder the air temperature the drier it is.
And yet it's been raining from Anchorage to Barrow in Alaska.
While I agree with your previous post about population control I read somewhere (and don't have a citation) that it would take a solar array about 40 miles square to provide all of the worlds power. That's a far cry from paving over half the states.
Many countries have agreed etc to REDUCE their future emissions so that future CO2 concentrations (get it? CONCENTRATIONS !!) reduce to no more than 350ppm.
And even the 350ppm target CO2 concentration isn't by any means guaranteed to lead to a stable climate. Just a less wildly unstable climate.
I do pity your children more than I pity we who are making these problems for your children.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Coal. Somewhere around the $5/gallon mark, it becomes economically viable to liquify coal and feed it to cars and whatnot. Bio-fuel, Brazil has been running cars on ethanol for years. Batteries, hydrogen, or hell, even flywheels can store energy. That means grid power can move these things for us. That means coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, solarheat, geothermal, and whatever else they'll cook up. In case you haven't noticed, there's been this alternative energy thing going around. Now, oil IS going to run out. And before it does, it's going to get ludicrously expensive. When the price rises, alternatives look more and more promising. And there will always be alternatives. They may be more expensive, or more polluting, or require virgin sacrifices, but the world will go on. No trend continues forever.
But you don't like that answer. For some reason, you need to feel that the world is going to end. I've never really understood this aspect of humanity. It's been with us since antiquity, and I don't see it going anywhere. So relax, the world is not doomed. Things might change. But they're not going to change that much that fast.
That would be a problem for skiing lovers...
I think that should be lovers of skiing. Otherwise you could have a nasty accident.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.