Do Natural Disasters benefit the midwest?

[chaglang]

There seems to be far less downside in accepting the likleihood that manmade global warming is happening and taking appropriate action.

[earthling]

^That sounds reasonable on the surface but if it's true that the momentum can't be stopped unless reducing global population back to 1B, do you spend resources naively trying to stop the change or do you spend resources to prepare for the change.

Might be better off putting in enough effort to keep rivers/air clean but instead of trying to stop global climate change, prepare for the upcoming changes. May be worth effort to research controlling weather in the future than trying to humanely find a way to reduce population down to 1B.

[chaglang]

That mentality would have kept everyone in bomb shelters from 1945-1991. Bomb's going to drop, why naively try to live normal lives?

[earthling]

Not seeing your analogy. We could stop the bomb threat as it is entirely human made. Global climate change is partly natural and if we want to avoid human impact, would have to reset the population down to maybe 1B to be effective.

I reread your post and maybe misunderstood. Did you mean taking appropriate action to prepare for the change or take action to stop human impact? If the latter, how do you reduce the existence of 7B people humanely and get back to 1B? Buying 'green' products may make tree hugger types feel better but it will take something much more drastic than that to be effective, like telling most of the planet not to breed anymore. Since that's not likely, better off preparing for the inevitable changes.

Ignoring climate change is ignorance, thinking we could stop it is naive (until we develop technology to entirely control weather).

[aknowledgeableperson]

There seems to be far less downside in accepting the likleihood that manmade global warming is happening and taking appropriate action.

We can reduce the population by killing everyone once they turn 50 (but let those already over 50 can live out the natural lives ) and only allow every other couple to have one child but beyond that they isn't much that can be done to control the population. But if the number of people causes 60% of global warming wouldn't we be better off spending more funds trying to mitigate the effects?

[phuqueue]

The "number of people" doesn't cause any of global warming, burning fossil fuels does. The only connection between the two is that we need more energy to sustain more people, and we get the vast majority of our energy from fossil fuels. By reducing our consumption of fossil fuels, we could in turn reduce climate change. Eliminating a broad swath of the population would be one way to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but it is not the only way. Energy conservation, better fuel efficiency, and ultimately, transitioning to alternative energy sources are alternative paths that don't require killing a bunch of people.

Of course it's all easier said than done. Ultimately we're all fucked.

[aknowledgeableperson]

There is more to the population issue than energy consumption. There is food production, clothing, housing, etc .

[earthling]

The "number of people" doesn't cause any of global warming, burning fossil fuels does.

And all kinds of things we do, like fart and breed animals/pets/livestock that fart (OK, not as much impact as fossil fuels). Converting natural prarieland/forests to farmland contributes. Even if we stopped all fossil fuel production today, the snowball effect is already in progress and may not be reversible until the natural cycle refreshing things over thousands of years.

And it's not likely we'll reduce fossil fuel use for another generation. As long as the fuel in some form is there, humans will ultimately use it...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... astructure

CO2 isn't the only factor that changes global temp though. Angle of earth's axis apparently does too, which wobbles and is what probably has most impact to glacial/warming cycles. Intense sunspots or lack thereof and variation in solar radiation that last for decades can impact global temp long term too. There are a bunch of factors and the 'people are exclusively responsible' proponents play the CO2 card a bit too much. The bottom line is that we can't fully control it so need to figure out how to adapt.

[phuqueue]

There is more to the population issue than energy consumption. There is food production, clothing, housing, etc .

Luckily this isn't a thread about the "population issue," it's a thread about the climate change issue, which is a function of the amount of carbon we're putting into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels for energy (and also the amount of carbon not being pulled back out of the atmosphere by all the carbon sinks that we've destroyed through deforestation -- but more efficient land use planning can address that before we have to resort to killing people).

The "number of people" doesn't cause any of global warming, burning fossil fuels does.

And all kinds of things we do, like fart and breed animals/pets/livestock that fart (OK, not as much as fossil fuels). Even if we stopped all fossil fuel production today, the snowball effect is already in progress and may not be reversible until the natural cycle refreshing things over thousands of years.

And it's not likely we'll reduce fossil fuel use for another generation...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... astructure

CO2 isn't the only factor that changes global temp though. Angle of earth's axis apparently does too, which wobbles and is what probably has most impact to glacial/warming cycles.

Methane (from all sources, not just farts) is a considerably smaller source of greenhouse gas emissions than carbon dioxide. "The snowball effect is already in progress" is basically just an attempt to justify the position that "well we already fucked up, may as well fuck up even harder now."

Re: the axial tilt argument: "Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder with an overall cooling trend leading to an ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures and a concurring glacial melt has led some to attribute recent changes to greenhouse gas emissions." (emphasis mine)

In any case, for whatever arguments you want to make about "we're still coming out of the last ice age," I refer you back to the IPCC report I linked/quoted from earlier, which specifically concluded a greater than 90% chance that at least some of the rise in temperatures was man-made, and a greater than 66% chance that the man-made part was "significant." It's entirely possible that natural processes may also be at work, but if the story is "man has accelerated, perhaps dramatically, climate change that was gradually occurring through natural processes," that isn't a whole lot rosier than if temperatures would be static but for our activities.

(as a side note, the exact cause of ice ages is poorly understood, but axial tilt is only one component, not the one with "the most impact"; atmospheric composition, incidentally, is another one)

[earthling]

So are proposing CO2 is the number one factor and reducing it would solve the climate problems? I disagree as there are other factors and playing the CO2 card exclusively isn't wise (and yeah, you could point to reports that claim this). Better off preparing for changes than trying to stop climate change. But yeah, if there is an opportunity to reduce CO2 great, I just don't see opportunity to reduce enough in another generation or 3, especially in China that is just now getting started. We should definitely put as much effort into keeping rivers/air clean, which is more doable.

Meanwhile, it appears hurricanes are increasing and with more intensity in this age. You honestly think putting a near full stop to fossil fuel use today will stop the ocean warming soon or even within decades?

This describes several factors that impact climate change...
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html

[chaglang]

There seems to be far less downside in accepting the likleihood that manmade global warming is happening and taking appropriate action.

We can reduce the population by killing everyone once they turn 50 (but let those already over 50 can live out the natural lives ) and only allow every other couple to have one child but beyond that they isn't much that can be done to control the population. But if the number of people causes 60% of global warming wouldn't we be better off spending more funds trying to mitigate the effects?

Where'd you get 60%? And how did everyone in this thread suddenly become certain that it's population that's dooming us? Maybe it is, but people are speaking with a high degree of certainty and I'm curious to see the source material.

If we change our consumption habits it still has no downside. If global warming isn't real, the earth is cleaner. Win. If it reverses global warming, win. If we're already past the point of calamity, it hastens the time the earth can recover, and we have fewer pollutants. That's a win. And it's not mutually exclusive with preparing for some ecopocalypse. Win.

[grovester]

So are proposing CO2 is the number one factor and reducing it would solve the climate problems? I disagree as there are other factors and playing the CO2 card exclusively isn't wise (and yeah, you could point to reports that claim this). Better off preparing for changes than trying to stop climate change. But yeah, if there is an opportunity to reduce CO2 great, I just don't see opportunity to reduce enough in another generation or 3, especially in China that is just now getting started. We should definitely put as much effort into keeping rivers/air clean, which is more doable.

Meanwhile, it appears hurricanes are increasing and with more intensity in this age. You honestly think putting a near full stop to fossil fuel use today will stop the ocean warming soon or even within decades?

This describes several factors that impact climate change...
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html

China is already shrinking, and btw leading in investing in clean energy. Doing both is the only option.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Where'd you get 60%? And how did everyone in this thread suddenly become certain that it's population that's dooming us? Maybe it is, but people are speaking with a high degree of certainty and I'm curious to see the source material.

If we change our consumption habits it still has no downside. If global warming isn't real, the earth is cleaner. Win. If it reverses global warming, win. If we're already past the point of calamity, it hastens the time the earth can recover, and we have fewer pollutants. That's a win. And it's not mutually exclusive with preparing for some ecopocalypse. Win.

I was just using a number which if you follow is part of the question, is climate change more the result of human activity or due to natural (or non-manmade) occurrences? And I am not saying don't change if climate change has a greater cause in natural occurrences, just that if change is going to come then shouldn't more effort be put into mitigating the damage that is going to come no matter what we do, it is just a matter of time for when it does happen?

The "number of people" doesn't cause any of global warming, burning fossil fuels does.

Are you saying the degree of climate change would be the same as it is now if we had 50% less population, or 50% more?

[phuqueue]

So are proposing CO2 is the number one factor and reducing it would solve the climate problems? I disagree as there are other factors and playing the CO2 card exclusively isn't wise (and yeah, you could point to reports that claim this). Better off preparing for changes than trying to stop climate change. But yeah, if there is an opportunity to reduce CO2 great, I just don't see opportunity to reduce enough in another generation or 3, especially in China that is just now getting started. We should definitely put as much effort into keeping rivers/air clean, which is more doable.

I don't know what the "number one factor" is, but reducing any factor would mitigate climate change. I have never, not once, suggested that carbon dioxide is the only factor at play, only that greenhouse gas emissions in general, of which carbon dioxide is a large part, play a significant role. I have not said that we could "solve" climate change, I have not said that we should focus exclusively on carbon dioxide, I basically haven't said anything that you appear to think I said. However, I would say that "playing the CO2 card exclusively" is wiser than not playing any cards at all. "Just keep pumping shit into the atmosphere and try to cope with what may come" is, at best, a reckless strategy.

Meanwhile, it appears hurricanes are increasing and with more intensity in this age. You honestly think putting a near full stop to fossil fuel use today will stop the ocean warming soon or even within decades?

This describes several factors that impact climate change...
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html

I "honestly think" what I write in my posts.

Where'd you get 60%? And how did everyone in this thread suddenly become certain that it's population that's dooming us? Maybe it is, but people are speaking with a high degree of certainty and I'm curious to see the source material.

If we change our consumption habits it still has no downside. If global warming isn't real, the earth is cleaner. Win. If it reverses global warming, win. If we're already past the point of calamity, it hastens the time the earth can recover, and we have fewer pollutants. That's a win. And it's not mutually exclusive with preparing for some ecopocalypse. Win.

I was just using a number which if you follow is part of the question, is climate change more the result of human activity or due to natural (or non-manmade) occurrences? And I am not saying don't change if climate change has a greater cause in natural occurrences, just that if change is going to come then shouldn't more effort be put into mitigating the damage that is going to come no matter what we do, it is just a matter of time for when it does happen?

Of course we should pursue mitigation strategies as well. This is not an either/or proposition, we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket.

The "number of people" doesn't cause any of global warming, burning fossil fuels does.

Are you saying the degree of climate change would be the same as it is now if we had 50% less population, or 50% more?

Yes that is obviously what I'm saying, population growth is in absolutely no way tied to climate change or any other environmental problems.

Of course the rate of climate change wouldn't be the same if you added or subtracted 3.5 billion people, but this isn't because people necessarily alter the climate by their mere presence, it's because the vast infrastructure we've built up to sustain ourselves requires energy. If we added 50% to the population but at the same time we derived all our electricity from fusion and drove electric cars (or, hell, didn't drive at all!) and so on and so forth, and we lived together in denser communities rather than bulldozing forests and developing greenfields, our climate would probably be considerably better off than it is now.

The difficult part is that fusion is not yet a viable energy source (nor is any other clean/alternative energy source yet developed enough to step in and replace fossil fuels to any significant degree), but that's a separate issue from simply answering your question of whether we could add or subtract 50% of the population without affecting climate change. Climate change is not driven by our mere existence, it's driven by our collective actions. Change those actions for the better, you can sustain far more people without necessarily creating the adverse effects we see now; change those actions for the worse, and you could create the same adverse effects with many fewer people. It's sort of (not completely) moot because a) we aren't capable of abruptly making the necessary changes and b) earthling is not entirely wrong in that the ball is already rolling and will not immediately stop just because we stop applying force to it (eg by ceasing all GHG emissions at once), but that doesn't mean we should buy into earthling's bogus fatalism that "well, what's done is done, may as well just keep doing more of it and deal with whatever results." We can still work toward getting where we need to be and change incrementally as progress allows. It's impossible to say how much this will help, but one thing we can say at least is that it can't possibly hurt.

[chaglang]

Where'd you get 60%? And how did everyone in this thread suddenly become certain that it's population that's dooming us? Maybe it is, but people are speaking with a high degree of certainty and I'm curious to see the source material.

If we change our consumption habits it still has no downside. If global warming isn't real, the earth is cleaner. Win. If it reverses global warming, win. If we're already past the point of calamity, it hastens the time the earth can recover, and we have fewer pollutants. That's a win. And it's not mutually exclusive with preparing for some ecopocalypse. Win.

I was just using a number which if you follow is part of the question, is climate change more the result of human activity or due to natural (or non-manmade) occurrences? And I am not saying don't change if climate change has a greater cause in natural occurrences, just that if change is going to come then shouldn't more effort be put into mitigating the damage that is going to come no matter what we do, it is just a matter of time for when it does happen?

If we decide that global warming will come no matter what, then it definitely will happen. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy:

-If we were right that change will come no matter what (due to natural causes, overpopulation, whatever), and devote our time only to preparing to the change, the end result is climate change.

-If we were wrong that change will come no matter what (due to natural causes, overpopulation, whatever), but devoted our time to only preparing to the change and not changing the consumption habits that were the real culprit, the end result is climate change.

Like I said, there's no downside to reducing our consumption. We can do other things in addition to that, but that should be the bare minimum.

[Highlander]

The difficult part is that fusion is not yet a viable energy source (nor is any other clean/alternative energy source yet developed enough to step in and replace fossil fuels to any significant degree), but that's a separate issue from simply answering your question of whether we could add or subtract 50% of the population without affecting climate change. Climate change is not driven by our mere existence, it's driven by our collective actions. Change those actions for the better, you can sustain far more people without necessarily creating the adverse effects we see now; change those actions for the worse, and you could create the same adverse effects with many fewer people. It's sort of (not completely) moot because a) we aren't capable of abruptly making the necessary changes and b) earthling is not entirely wrong in that the ball is already rolling and will not immediately stop just because we stop applying force to it (eg by ceasing all GHG emissions at once), but that doesn't mean we should buy into earthling's bogus fatalism that "well, what's done is done, may as well just keep doing more of it and deal with whatever results." We can still work toward getting where we need to be and change incrementally as progress allows. It's impossible to say how much this will help, but one thing we can say at least is that it can't possibly hurt.

It's good to see people take rational and pragmatic views on climate change. There are two places where we could make a huge change in carbon emissions; embracing much cleaner burning natural gas and public transportation. With natural gas, the Obama administration has really dropped the ball. The administration has played up to the impractical demands of the green lobby and totally overlooked the most practical way to reduce greenhouse emissions. Gas obviously still is a fossil fuel (not totally a fossil fuel though) but it has nowhere near the carbon output of coal or even oil. What's significant about gas is that it can be used for transportation with relatively small changes in infrastructure without reducing automobile range. And it's plentiful.

The other is public transportation. We won't get dense without public transportation. There's a huge chicken and egg problem for American cities here (as KC is experiencing) but I think it's the one driver for density that would work. Again, I do not understand why the administration hasn't pumped money into this.

[Highlander]

If we decide that global warming will come no matter what, then it definitely will happen. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy:

Not really. It's not a self-fulfilling prophesy to expect that drastic change to climate will occur. Why would it not. It's happened in and throughout the not to distant geological past and it's happened since the advent of humans on Earth. Glaciers disapperared from Glacier National Park post Pleistocene, not all that long ago, so it's not necassarily something new to see the same happening again today and the process of glacial retreat began long before Europeans settled the west. In the Pliocene, the planet was so dry that the Caspian Sea dried up leaving a hole several thousands of meters deep. Today, that would rapidly fill with water - as it has. Our records of climate for the planet are miserably short but it is known that climate change has absolutely been the primary driver for much human social change and migration long before the burning of fossil fuels commenced.

[earthling]

"Just keep pumping shit into the atmosphere and try to cope with what may come" is, at best, a reckless strategy.

Now you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't even imply.

"well, what's done is done, may as well just keep doing more of it and deal with whatever results."

And more 'quotes' that I never said. We appear to agree that we can't ignore that climate change is a threat and shouldn't be ignored. We both agree that CO2 has an impact and should be reduced where there is an opportunity. But there isn't any significant opportunity in the near term to make a major difference, there are other factors at play other than CO2 and the snowball is already rolling that will take decades to hundreds of years to recover from even if we could put a near stop to CO2, which is not likely soon.

We need to focus resources to prepare for the changes - adapt to the reality of changes. It would help to reduce burning fossil fuels to keep from things getting worse (and keep rivers/air clean) but my point is that it likely won't make the global climate changes already rolling go away in the near future and it's unrealistic to think it will. Alternatives may help more than hurt, at least with CO2. But converting anything into energy en masse often has some negative byproduct, especially when making enough to meet demands of billions of people. Solar/Wind power are good supplements but has a long way to go as a primary source and are not able to predictably produce 24x7. It's going to be tough to realistically reduce human impact on environment even with alternatives, which is why I have the position on the 'prepare for the changes' rather than try to unrealistically keep the planet in a static state when it changes naturally anyway.

[bobbyhawks]

You don't have to spend massive resources to reduce our footprint. You merely have to change the mentality. Conservation can be achieved by actually doing less. We have to become more comfortable with systems and companies that do not grow. Every sector is measured by growth, but endless growth is not possible without some pretty negative consequences. We externalize the costs and outputs of most things we do, be they pollution, mineral depletion, soil erosion, etc., and there really is no consequence for them so long as something is growing and profiting from that consequence-free externalized cost to humanity. We should always look to do things better, and to find ways for us to prosper and protect our future simultaneously, but there are so many things that are right in front of us that we have ignored for so long. Everyone knows that if you turn off a light when you leave a room, your electricity bill goes down. What if every company and community thought in much the same way? Where electricity bills are environmental consequences, and flipping the light switch is something very easy to do that we are all capable of, then why shouldn't we flip the switch, or sell things without massive amounts of packaging, or use less water, or prolong the life of tech products that are obsolete after one or two years because a billion dollar company wants to be a trillion dollar company. Convenience always wins out, though, and it is currently very convenient to externalize our current problems onto the technological hurdles of future generations.

[earthling]

Convenience always wins out, though

Yeah, there's a difference with what 'should' be done and what will realistically happen. It will be very surprising if all the coal repositories directly available to us go unused indefinitely even if we develop alternative sources. Conservation efforts you describe might help delay the use but the coal repositories will likely be used anyway.

It's default human nature to use what is practical, convenient, easily available than to do what is strategically best for the planet, and strategy is typically not an act by default. It's even more difficult to pull off strategy if it costs more to pull off than the existing convenient method that already has a system in place to easily deploy.