Global Warming News

[Pilot]

I don't know who the 27 year old person is, but those of us who have been around awhile longer can recall some other scientific predictions that didn't exactly happen.

In the late 60's, early 70's maybe there was the Population Bomb. Scary reading. Predicted that the earth's population would soon out run it's food supply, there would be massive starvation and wars as a result. Oops! We had the green revolution! We now have far more people than the Population Bomb predicted the earth could support.

Then in the early 70's there was the Limits to Growth. Like human caused global warming, it was based on modeling, modeling by some prominent scientists. They looked at the earth's essential resources and predicted that we would soon run out of some of those resources, some of them by the 1990's. I don't remember exactly which, unfortunately, but amazingly, we haven't.

Undoubtedly we will run our of certain resources at some time in the future. But the modelers can't anticipate everything. No one before the '73 oil embargo was talking about hybrid cars. Only recently has oil from algae made the news, and this may displace petroleum in a few (10? 20?) years, once they get the right genetic stock of algae figured out. In the middle 1800's whale oil was the primary lighting fuel, but the price was soaring because the whales were being over hunted and demand was too high. Then someone developed kerosene and Drake hit "rock oil" in 1859. In a few years the price of whale oil plummeted.

We can see what we can see now, we can model based on what we know now, which is what the global warmists are doing, but we can't see what smart people might dream up in just a few years. Even if humans are causing global warming, we'll solve that problem, too.

 

[dave1949]

I don't know who the 27 year old person is, but those of us who have been around awhile longer can recall some other scientific predictions that didn't exactly happen.

In the late 60's, early 70's maybe there was the Population Bomb. Scary reading. Predicted that the earth's population would soon out run it's food supply, there would be massive starvation and wars as a result. Oops! We had the green revolution! We now have far more people than the Population Bomb predicted the earth could support.

Then in the early 70's there was the Limits to Growth. Like human caused global warming, it was based on modeling, modeling by some prominent scientists. They looked at the earth's essential resources and predicted that we would soon run out of some of those resources, some of them by the 1990's. I don't remember exactly which, unfortunately, but amazingly, we haven't.

Undoubtedly we will run our of certain resources at some time in the future. But the modelers can't anticipate everything. No one before the '73 oil embargo was talking about hybrid cars. Only recently has oil from algae made the news, and this may displace petroleum in a few (10? 20?) years, once they get the right genetic stock of algae figured out. In the middle 1800's whale oil was the primary lighting fuel, but the price was soaring because the whales were being over hunted and demand was too high. Then someone developed kerosene and Drake hit "rock oil" in 1859. In a few years the price of whale oil plummeted.

We can see what we can see now, we can model based on what we know now, which is what the global warmists are doing, but we can't see what smart people might dream up in just a few years. Even if humans are causing global warming, we'll solve that problem, too.

The Green Revolution certainly helped feed more people on a global scale. There have been other influences. China's one child policy for one. Political strife, wars over limited resources and AIDs in Africa for another. The tendency for Western European ethnicities to voluntarily limit family size is another. The population problems have been 'finding' their own solutions as much as having been 'solved'. As far as the number of people supported, many of them aren't supported all that well, clinging to life on a very thin thread. We are all on a thinner thread since a large percentage of the food supply comes from an increasingly smaller and therefore more vulnerable pool of plant varieties - as a direct result of the Green Revolution. Over-population is self limiting really; 20 days after the food is gone, you will be dead. It would be interesting to know if there are more starving people in the world today than there were in 1960 - I bet there are.

If oil were actually scarce, the dependence on oil is also self limiting. If you are forced to use less of it, you do. Forced conservation of oil would quickly eliminate many optional uses. Imagine the effect of grounding 95% of the commercial air carrier fleet globally. It could absolutely be done if necessary. Our lives would be different but not threatened. Having oil and being able to make unlimited use of it without inducing problems, are two different things.

I don't doubt human ingenuity will overcome human caused problems - for some subset of the global population at least. But betting on that and how good the result will be, as opposed to trying to avoiding it, is not very logical. That's like setting the house on fire to try out the new fire engine.

In the case of global climate change, the risks are of a different order. We are potentially drastically altering the entire planet's climate in a relatively short period of time. If the predictions/projections of the more dire results are anywhere near true, there will be significant changes for most of the globe and it's inhabitants. Large scale and persistent economic disruption, war, dislocation, starvation and privation are easy to foresee in that scenario.

I certainly can't foresee what will actually happen. But I don't think the possibilities look very attractive. Nor do I subscribe to the ideas that anything can be overcome while ignoring the costs. It would be a shame for our descendents to look back and wonder 'What were they thinking?'
Dave.

 

[IH3444]

Jan Hendrik Schön - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jan Hendrik Schön: World Class Physics Fraud Gets Last Laugh - A Whole Book About Himself

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

The Green Revolution certainly helped feed more people on a global scale. There have been other influences. China's one child policy for one. Political strife, wars over limited resources and AIDs in Africa for another. The tendency for Western European ethnicities to voluntarily limit family size is another. The population problems have been 'finding' their own solutions as much as having been 'solved'. As far as the number of people supported, many of them aren't supported all that well, clinging to life on a very thin thread. We are all on a thinner thread since a large percentage of the food supply comes from an increasingly smaller and therefore more vulnerable pool of plant varieties - as a direct result of the Green Revolution. Over-population is self limiting really; 20 days after the food is gone, you will be dead. It would be interesting to know if there are more starving people in the world today than there were in 1960 - I bet there are.

If oil were actually scarce, the dependence on oil is also self limiting. If you are forced to use less of it, you do. Forced conservation of oil would quickly eliminate many optional uses. Imagine the effect of grounding 95% of the commercial air carrier fleet globally. It could absolutely be done if necessary. Our lives would be different but not threatened. Having oil and being able to make unlimited use of it without inducing problems, are two different things.

I don't doubt human ingenuity will overcome human caused problems - for some subset of the global population at least. But betting on that and how good the result will be, as opposed to trying to avoiding it, is not very logical. That's like setting the house on fire to try out the new fire engine.

In the case of global climate change, the risks are of a different order. We are potentially drastically altering the entire planet's climate in a relatively short period of time. If the predictions/projections of the more dire results are anywhere near true, there will be significant changes for most of the globe and it's inhabitants. Large scale and persistent economic disruption, war, dislocation, starvation and privation are easy to foresee in that scenario.

I certainly can't foresee what will actually happen. But I don't think the possibilities look very attractive. Nor do I subscribe to the ideas that anything can be overcome while ignoring the costs. It would be a shame for our descendents to look back and wonder 'What were they thinking?'
Dave.[/QUOTE

Firstly, I would like to take you up the bet, that there are more starving people today than in the sixties.
Secondly, If I understand your position, Chinas one child policy is a good thing? Because it controls population? Then why are you not in favor of more wars? Less population right?
As to your comment about some populations "aren;t supported all that well"
I guess thats a matter for those populations to decide isn't it? Or do we as the Western Progressives have our duty to Noblise Oblige. Lets control the natives, before they take over the planet. Your eugenics slip is showing.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Chuck 52,
Thanks for the recomendations, but I am staying close to my local pub, its too darn cold out to be out roaming in the country.
So far favorite is "Old Bob", but there are so many competitors, so little time, but as loyal "tractorbynetter"(That has a interesting ring to it) I am going to give it my best effort! Cheers

 

[Pilot]

Actually human ingenuity has helped us overcome all the the technological problems humans have faced since the first cave man devised a weapon to help him kill game. Human ingenuity is what gives you the lifestyle you enjoy today. I suspect technological problems are relatively easy to solve in the larger scheme of things compared to the problems we have with getting along with each other, and developing and implementing government and economic systems that allow people to thrive. And in almost all those cases of people starving today, you can blame the broken governmental and economic system they have, which is usually heavily tied in with corruption on a grand scale. We have the ability to feed everyone, we just can't get all the food to everyone who needs it.

More starving people? Well, world population has about doubled since "The Population Bomb" was written, so of course there are more starving people. But as a percent of total population? Probably lower now. And why has the population grown so fast? Technology that has allowed us to feed more and fight disease. AIDS has been a big hit in Africa, but the population there has still grown--from 767 million in 1999 to 973 million in 2008.

Oil? Yup, we'll run out some day. But consider: With only 3% of the world oil reserves, the US has over 500,000 wells, while the world total is about 880,000 wells. Hmmm. Maybe there's more oil out there than we know? Is it possible that we at one time had most of the oil in the world? I doubt it. Then there is that very big ocean; 70% of the world is under the ocean and we have recently developed deep water drilling technology (there's that word, technology, again) that has enabled Brazil to find a huge new field off it's coast.

We can solve global warming if it really is caused by humans. Recently a study showed that industry, which spews lots of greenhouse gases, also spews aerosols that counteract the greenhouse effect; but in transportation that is not the case. Vehicles spew little material that offsets the CO2 they emit. Suppose they reformulate gasoline and diesel to boost the aerosol emissions? They have a half life in the atmosphere that is fairly short, to the effect could be monitored and regulated to maintain a certain level. That's just an idea and it has problems--polluting to stop another problem--but ideas is where technology comes from.

Our biggest problems are not problems such as global warming that technology can solve, our biggest problems are cultural and economic that allow all those people to starve or live under non-functional governments and economic systems. We can solve technological problems, maybe not overnight, but we can do that. It's technology that allows you to make your living as you do instead of hunting and gathering.

 

[Chuck52]

Chuck 52,
Thanks for the recomendations, but I am staying close to my local pub, its too darn cold out to be out roaming in the country.
So far favorite is "Old Bob", but there are so many competitors, so little time, but as loyal "tractorbynetter"(That has a interesting ring to it) I am going to give it my best effort! Cheers

I will admit to the occasional slip in my memory, but I usually don't forget the important things, like beer and pubs and the like, so I think you must have gotten suggestions from someone else!

Chuck

 

[SpringHollow]

Actually, a recent documentary was saying high yield rice has dramatically cut back on the number of people starving. They are now living on the edge instead of dying. But the growth rate in population means that they need to find an even higher yielding rice or we will be in trouble again. They are using gene sequencing and genetic engineering in attempts to accomplish this.

Ken

 

[dmccarty]

I am sure that there are more starving people today than ever before.

But this is simply because there are more people on the Big Blue Marble.

On the other hand there are more non hungry people on the Big Blue Marble as well.

The more apt question is not are there more hungry people in the world but is the ratio of fed people to starving people better today or yesterday?

Notice I did not use "well fed" since one can argue that our diet of sugar and carb consumption is not well fed.

Hunger in the modern era is mainly a political event. Not a farming problem. People are starving in North Korea due to government policy and actions not because of bad farm practices or bad weather. The Irish famine was a political event spurred by the loss of the potato crop. Ireland EXPORTED food during the famines due British control AND moved people off the land to raise sheep. People were burned out of their VILLAGES in the middle of winter. In today's vocabulary it would be called Ethnic Cleansing. Millions of people in Viet Nam starved to death in the 20's-30's because France was exporting rice to sell overseas. Viet Nam was the largest exporter of rice while its people starved to death by the millions.

Somalia, Ethiopia events are political. Not due to a lack of farming technology.

The loss of population is not a western European event. It is an Developed Nation event. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and western Europe have declining populations. The US has a sustainable population with legal emigration. A growing population with illegal emigration. Russia has a declining population but one can debate if they really are a Developed Nation. North Korea has a declining population but they are not a Developed Nation in any sense.

Africa is just a mess.... Not going there literally or figuratively. :confused2:

Latin and South American can follow the Developed Nations or Africa. Who knows. Flip a coin.

The aging and declining population in Developed Nations WILL cause economic angst due to higher governmental social spending with lower revenue due to fewer workers.

Later,
Dan

 

[dave1949]

The Green Revolution certainly helped feed more people on a global scale. There have been other influences. China's one child policy for one. Political strife, wars over limited resources and AIDs in Africa for another. The tendency for Western European ethnicities to voluntarily limit family size is another. The population problems have been 'finding' their own solutions as much as having been 'solved'. As far as the number of people supported, many of them aren't supported all that well, clinging to life on a very thin thread. We are all on a thinner thread since a large percentage of the food supply comes from an increasingly smaller and therefore more vulnerable pool of plant varieties - as a direct result of the Green Revolution. Over-population is self limiting really; 20 days after the food is gone, you will be dead. It would be interesting to know if there are more starving people in the world today than there were in 1960 - I bet there are.

If oil were actually scarce, the dependence on oil is also self limiting. If you are forced to use less of it, you do. Forced conservation of oil would quickly eliminate many optional uses. Imagine the effect of grounding 95% of the commercial air carrier fleet globally. It could absolutely be done if necessary. Our lives would be different but not threatened. Having oil and being able to make unlimited use of it without inducing problems, are two different things.

I don't doubt human ingenuity will overcome human caused problems - for some subset of the global population at least. But betting on that and how good the result will be, as opposed to trying to avoiding it, is not very logical. That's like setting the house on fire to try out the new fire engine.

In the case of global climate change, the risks are of a different order. We are potentially drastically altering the entire planet's climate in a relatively short period of time. If the predictions/projections of the more dire results are anywhere near true, there will be significant changes for most of the globe and it's inhabitants. Large scale and persistent economic disruption, war, dislocation, starvation and privation are easy to foresee in that scenario.

I certainly can't foresee what will actually happen. But I don't think the possibilities look very attractive. Nor do I subscribe to the ideas that anything can be overcome while ignoring the costs. It would be a shame for our descendents to look back and wonder 'What were they thinking?'
Dave.[/QUOTE

Firstly, I would like to take you up the bet, that there are more starving people today than in the sixties.
Secondly, If I understand your position, Chinas one child policy is a good thing? Because it controls population? Then why are you not in favor of more wars? Less population right?
As to your comment about some populations "aren;t supported all that well"
I guess thats a matter for those populations to decide isn't it? Or do we as the Western Progressives have our duty to Noblise Oblige. Lets control the natives, before they take over the planet. Your eugenics slip is showing.

Whew, you sure read alot of your own biases about other people into a post

I haven't even tried to look for starving/poor nutrition stats, it's a gut feeling. As I stated - it would be interesting to know. Whatever the success of the Green Revolution, it has certainly not been a cure all for world hunger is the point - no matter how you count it - by percentages or actual numbers. At the same time, it has promoted agricultural practices that are risky and are now being implicated in the study of common aliments. Hard to see that as a great technological success eventhough it had it's roots in the minds of very well meaning researchers.

I don't have a 'position' on China's one-child policy. I noted it because it altered the projected population growth of China vis-a-vis the Population Bomb prediction Pilot spoke of in his post.

As to how well other populations are supported; I didn't mention anything about from how, where or by whom they are supported. So, I don't know what you mean by that tangent or your inane comment on eugenics. Assume the simplest case: how well their nutritional needs are met; food on the table, regardless of source. You are aware that eugenics and limiting the growth of population are not the same thing?

If you read Michael Pollan's 'In Defense Of Food'; you may come to the conclusion that a significant number of Americans are also suffering from a lack of proper nutrients.

Dave.

 

[dave1949]

Actually, a recent documentary was saying high yield rice has dramatically cut back on the number of people starving. They are now living on the edge instead of dying. But the growth rate in population means that they need to find an even higher yielding rice or we will be in trouble again. They are using gene sequencing and genetic engineering in attempts to accomplish this.

Ken

Treading water in other words. It would seem that no matter how much food is produced, the world will need another sack of rice/wheat - or whatever.

I am afraid we aren't solving the problem of world hunger, we are just working on an ever growing problem. The more successful we are, the more successful we must be. That sounds like an infinite progression to me, it is not sustainable.

At some point, if people are to continue to consume anything resembling food as we know it, the global population will have to stabilize. I realize that gives some people the ethical willies, but by how much are we willing to transform human existence to avoid the topic?

Dave.

 

[SpringHollow]

Share of hungry people in the developing world[8][9]
Year 1970 1980 1990 2005 2007
37 % 28 % 20 % 16 % 17 %


Starvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pilot]

No one has yet mentioned the effect on population growth that prosperity has. The more prosperous people become, the fewer kids they have, except where custom or religion mandates more. That's why most of Europe, the US and Japan have stable or declining populations. Until those 3rd world countries get their economic and political act together, we'll see starving kids on the tube. But the food exists, it just doesn't get to them.

At some point, if they don't learn to prosper, we could run out of our ability to supply food to the world, but prosperity is the key.

And imagine a world where prosperity is everywhere. OK, there will be a greater demand on some resources, and we'll have to learn to recycle more, but we'll have a lot more smart people, businesses and labs to help solve our problems. BTW, those solutions = technology.

 

[dave1949]

Share of hungry people in the developing world[8][9]
Year 1970 1980 1990 2005 2007
37 % 28 % 20 % 16 % 17 %


Starvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I guessed wrong. Thanks Ken. Even the lower values are higher than I would have thought, but, thankfully they are less than half of 1970.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Whew, you sure read alot of your own biases about other people into a post

I haven't even tried to look for starving/poor nutrition stats, it's a gut feeling. As I stated - it would be interesting to know. Whatever the success of the Green Revolution, it has certainly not been a cure all for world hunger is the point - no matter how you count it - by percentages or actual numbers. At the same time, it has promoted agricultural practices that are risky and are now being implicated in the study of common aliments. Hard to see that as a great technological success eventhough it had it's roots in the minds of very well meaning researchers.

I don't have a 'position' on China's one-child policy. I noted it because it altered the projected population growth of China vis-a-vis the Population Bomb prediction Pilot spoke of in his post.

As to how well other populations are supported; I didn't mention anything about from how, where or by whom they are supported. So, I don't know what you mean by that tangent or your inane comment on eugenics. Assume the simplest case: how well their nutritional needs are met; food on the table, regardless of source. You are aware that eugenics and limiting the growth of population are not the same thing?

If you read Michael Pollan's 'In Defense Of Food'; you may come to the conclusion that a significant number of Americans are also suffering from a lack of proper nutrients.

Dave.

My reference to the Eugenists,(I.E. Population control of CERTAIN groups) was that they and the modern Green Movement, along with most other command control systems of government
have at there root an elitist mentality, that presumes that only they have the answer to the problems facing society, even(especially) if that society lays somewhere on the other side of the globe.
I don't recall anyone on the our side of the issue of AGW calling for the arrest and imprisonment of those who DID believe in "Global warming"now that it has been widely debunked,unlike some on the left had done.
And while you may consider it "inane" to question whether one should have only one bowl of rice, or in the alternative, no life, I am a beleiver in letting the one holding the rice bowl decide. Not Big Brother.

 

[dave1949]

No one has yet mentioned the effect on population growth that prosperity has. The more prosperous people become, the fewer kids they have, except where custom or religion mandates more. That's why most of Europe, the US and Japan have stable or declining populations. Until those 3rd world countries get their economic and political act together, we'll see starving kids on the tube. But the food exists, it just doesn't get to them.

At some point, if they don't learn to prosper, we could run out of our ability to supply food to the world, but prosperity is the key.

And imagine a world where prosperity is everywhere. OK, there will be a greater demand on some resources, and we'll have to learn to recycle more, but we'll have a lot more smart people, businesses and labs to help solve our problems. BTW, those solutions = technology.

'Imagine'; John Lennon, 1971 A great song.

No, the food doesn't get to the most needy in many cases. It is stolen and resold or whatever. Somebody, somewhere eats it - right? I'm not sure that because the food doesn't reach it's intended recipient we can assume there is plenty of food.

I don't consider myself a Luddite by any means, but technology has lost some of its glitter for me over the years. It can be a double-edged sword in some cases. In others, there were more sensible solutions to the original problems than to invent a gee whiz butt saver. Solutions that cost less and are sustainable. Better yet, put more societal emphasis on avoiding problems rather than letting problems occur that now need a technology solution.

The interactions of technology and society are most troubling. Much has been written about the automobile and the transformation of society for example. It's not all good by any means. Now, advanced personal communication is taking on the same flavor of change.

I have this creeping sense that we chase endless rainbows for greener grass, only to find out we are pursuing hollow dreams. That somehow we are missing the main point, but are happily and ferverishly substituting technology for whatever that is. Either I am showing my age or I need to take up Buddhism.

Does anyone have an example of a constructive technology that the human race has declined to employ once discovered and perfected?
Dave.

 

[Loren49]

Quote by FallbrockFarmer
"I don't recall anyone on the our side of the issue of AGW calling for the arrest and imprisonment of those who DID believe in "Global warming"now that it has been widely debunked,unlike some on the left had done."

I believe that a majority of scientists who examine this issue strongly disagree with your statement. Some conclusions of a few were overstated for various reasons but those errors haven't made the issue go away.

Loren

 

[dcyrilc]

Does anyone have an example of a constructive technology that the human race has declined to employ once discovered and perfected?
Dave.

Atomic bomb?

 

[aczlan]

Atomic bomb?

I think that an atomic bomb would count as destructive rather than constructive.

Aaron Z