Peat bogs and climate change

[biffvernon]

Of course the problems are going to be easier to manage if population doesn't continue rising forever. There is hope for some guarded optimism in this area though. Birth rates are falling in most places. There appears to be a close and causal relationship between women's education and birth rate and efforts to improve women's education seem to be about the best method of reducing birthrate.

The demographers seem pretty confident that population will reach about 9 billion around the middle of this century but is likely to stabilize at about that level and not increase much further. That's the model based on no doomsday dieoffs following bird flu, Peak Oil or whatever.

In a business as fairly usual future we could probably feed 9 billion quite comfortably, given a more equable distribution of resources and a few less beefburgers.

Climate change is a rather big spanner in the agricultural works.

 

[Nemesis]

So you don't support the willy nilly idea then?

I see - it's women who have to save the planet. Hmmmm.

 

[Pford75]

I see that the 'dissenting' articles have been ignored - have to say that this is fairly typical of the debate.....people claim total agreement on climate change and then ignore the voices who dissent :wink:

I'm not expert enough to know who is right/wrong in the debate....they all seem to have lots of letters, qualifications and titles.....but even I can recognise that we are a long way from universal agreement.

 

[Flyfisher]

There may well be ways of feeding 9 billion, or more, people but it has to be 'greener' to reduce that number. Reduce the population and much of the other issues will begin to resolve themselves.

One of the easiest ways to reduce your carbon footprint is to limit the size of your family, not only in the present but also as a lasting legacy.

This article touches on the issue and, I think, again highlights the inconsistencies in how this whole issue is often approached.

PS: thanks to Pford75 for some perspective from the other side of the debate (edit: hadn't seen your last post before posting this, but I do agree)

 

[Nemesis]

Well I haven't had a chance to read them properly yet, my head this morning is immersed in something entirely different in which thankfully I can prove, by dint of diligent research and historical evidence, the Dr******* paid by a large development firm is very, very wrong and has contradicted himself in a document just read on t'internet. Therefore a stiffly worded to the nasty developer's legal bods asking for an apology to me (who he rubbished as wrong on this matter to many) is I think high on the agenda today... You can't believe all you read I agree.

No, I don't know either re climate change. I only know that there is something else to be worried about, and I can't see the endless consumption of non-renewable resources is a great way to carry on either.

What we do about China I have no idea. Yet the view that it's pointless me not doing anything in the face of so many others doing it isn't one which sits easily on consciences is it?

'What if we live to be fifty

and the bomb doesn't drop after all?'

Tom Robinson

I lived to be fifty and it didn't - maybe co-incidence, maybe all those protests I once took part in? Who knows.

Just cos that bomb didn't drop isn't any reason to think none ever will.

 

[biffvernon]

I'm afraid that I sit on the 'unconvinced' side of the debate....I've hesitated in posting to this thread because as suspected, it invokes passionate debate on both sides, and the unbelievers are often subject to personal attacks, threats etc.

I thought it might be helpful to include some reference from respected 'disbelievers'.

There's no place for personal attacks and threats. Here's a list of most of the serious contrarians:
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Of course we don't have space for a similar list of scientists who are in the mainstream.

Fred Pearce, environment correspondent for New Scientist, in his book "With Speed and Violence", published a couple of weeks ago, has this to say:

Many climate scientists dismiss the skeptics with a wave of the hand and return to their computer models. Most skeptics, they note, fall into one of three categories: Political scientists, journalists, and economists with little knowledge of climate science; retired experts who are aggrieved to find their old teachings disturbed; and salaried scientists with overbearing bosses to serve, such as oil companies or the governments in hock to them.

But Pearce does not dismiss them with a wave of the hand. He goes on to look into their objections. He argues that they do us a service by forcing us to question the workings of the IPCC. The conclusion, however, is that the IPCC position is conservative and the outlook is likely to be very much worse and very much sooner.

Please read his book: With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change

 

[biffvernon]

I see that the 'dissenting' articles have been ignored - have to say that this is fairly typical of the debate.....people claim total agreement on climate change and then ignore the voices who dissent .

Give us a chance, mate. I was reading the articles you linked to before posting. And some of us have work to do

 

[skier-hughes]

I see that the 'dissenting' articles have been ignored - have to say that this is fairly typical of the debate.....people claim total agreement on climate change and then ignore the voices who dissent :wink:

I wasn't ignoring you, I just didn't argue or agree with you.... and said I was sat on the fence, thinking something must be done, but what and by whom...

Should I sell a car and buy a land rover?
The land rover would be more practical for what I do now.
The land rover would in fact be more efficient on fuel than the car I'd sell to replace it so is greener?
But instead of getting admiring glances as you drive down the road I'd get pelted with eggs :lol:

Quandries to be looked into

 

[Nemesis]

And my views on much that I read are coloured by the fact that many may have qualifications but it doesn't mean they are right or they aren't a case of he who pays the piper... The Dr referred to above is a 'respected' historian ... who is being paid in his capacity as a 'Historic Buildings Consultant' to rubbish a set of buildings as justification for demolition. He's being paid to do this, and the developers will make zillions from this if it happens.

Who do you believe - those of us who think the buildings of historic and architectural merit, or those who say they aren't?

 

[Flyfisher]

Unfortunately, 4x4s have been demonised to the point where reasonable discussions are now impossible. Most likely by the same people who attack pediatricians for preying on little children :roll:

 

[worms]

Coming back to the cows bit…

We in UK have a very different perspective on the role of cows in society and the natural cycle of farm production than people in the tropics. For many small farmers, the cow recycles the weed crop into useful fertiliser, faster and more efficiently than composting. The cow also provides the traction that would otherwise have to come from fossil fuels or human labour. Arguably, on a global scale the primary products from cattle are manure and traction rather than meat, milk and hides. In many smallholder farming situations, there is an optimum ratio of cattle to crops which in some cases can work out at about one cow per half acre.

A far cry from American feedlots and hamburger production!

 

[Nemesis]

In reality it is how we used animals for centuries, I've done a great deal of research on the increase of meat in the diet of most people (as opposed to the rich) in this country and it wasn't until the rise in the manufacturing industry that it was considered that flesh fed men were needed for the economy of the country.

We couldn't provide, the colonies could, refrigeration was invented and carcasses brought via steam powered refrigerated holds from forin parts... the huge growth in meat eating as a daily staple dates really from the last part of the 19th century.

Fish too...

The family pig was another matter entirely.

 

[NT]

I'm afraid that I sit on the 'unconvinced' side of the debate....I've hesitated in posting to this thread because as suspected, it invokes passionate debate on both sides, and the unbelievers are often subject to personal attacks, threats etc.

I thought it might be helpful to include some reference from respected 'disbelievers'.

There's no place for personal attacks and threats. Here's a list of most of the serious contrarians:
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Of course we don't have space for a similar list of scientists who are in the mainstream.

Fred Pearce, environment correspondent for New Scientist, in his book "With Speed and Violence", published a couple of weeks ago, has this to say:

Many climate scientists dismiss the skeptics with a wave of the hand and return to their computer models. Most skeptics, they note, fall into one of three categories: Political scientists, journalists, and economists with little knowledge of climate science; retired experts who are aggrieved to find their old teachings disturbed; and salaried scientists with overbearing bosses to serve, such as oil companies or the governments in hock to them.

But Pearce does not dismiss them with a wave of the hand. He goes on to look into their objections. He argues that they do us a service by forcing us to question the workings of the IPCC. The conclusion, however, is that the IPCC position is conservative and the outlook is likely to be very much worse and very much sooner.

Please read his book: With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change

So, one person agrees with you. That's that settled then!

I dont think you do your position any favours like this. A convincing case rests on 2 things only: relevant facts and logic. Repeatedly trying to convince by other means merely undermines your case, and shows what your position is founded on.


NT

 

[NT]

Pford75:

Before the onslaught begins....I think my main point is that I am unconvinced...not 'never to be convinced'. What really frustrates me is that the debate is presented as "finished", "overwhelming" & "conclusive". I don't believe it is any of these things, yet those of us who wish to engage in rational discussion are painted as raving loonies usually of a far right persuasion.

Very good summary imho. The reality is the arguments of the headlong greenies just dont stand up to analysis. The passion's there, the desire to help humanity is there at the popular level (even if somewhat the opposite at the scientist/researcher level), but the ability to disintguish proven fact from claims by the financially interested is not, and without that the facts are not distinguished from the (financially driven) fiction.


NT

 

[NT]

Pford75:

Before the onslaught begins....I think my main point is that I am unconvinced...not 'never to be convinced'. What really frustrates me is that the debate is presented as "finished", "overwhelming" & "conclusive". I don't believe it is any of these things, yet those of us who wish to engage in rational discussion are painted as raving loonies usually of a far right persuasion.

Very good summary imho. The reality is the arguments of the headlong greenies just dont stand up to analysis. The passion's there, the desire to help humanity is there at the popular level (even if somewhat the opposite at the scientist/researcher level), but the ability to disintguish proven fact from claims by the financially interested is not, and without that the facts are not distinguished from the (financially driven) fiction.


NT

 

[NT]

skier-hughes:

My point being that the unborn are tomorrows wreckers, slow down the rate of human growth and you slow down the need for extra emmissions.
Not just in the way of energy useage, but if we have less children there is then less need for extra housing, we keep the countryside and trees which negate co2 emmissions.
Also less food would need to be provided so all those cows giving off methane could be reduced.

No need to cull the living, just cut back on the growth rate.

That would mean less scientists to research the issue and find a solution,and less research money and resources with which to do so. One could make an argument that increasing population among those with the opoprtunity to solve the problem, ie those with high resource levels, would solve whatever problems exist more quickly, and reduce rather than increase the number of humans born between now and that solution date.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that POV, but that theres a case for it, and this is just one example of how the subject is not as simple as is so often portrayed.


NT

 

[NT]

What worries me is why someone like NT, who when discussing electrical wiring is clearly a man to be trusted, refuses to accept that anthropogenic global warming is an established fact. He denies it in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence but without giving any reasons of his own.

NT's attitude, repeated millions of times, is what prevents politicians taking the necessary actions. How do we move from this deadly position in which so many people deny the truth?

If your position is the Truth, then you or others in your position need to be able to establish it & demonstrate it. Your job-seeking leaders have singularly failed to do so, despite your enthusiasm for their claims. There is plenty of evidence you can cite, evidence that has convinced many, but that doesnt mean its always without comebacks, comebacks that show it to be not the evidence or proof its portrayed as.

If, as I think is more likely, your position is incorrect (and the data and logic do support this pov), you need do nothing. The human species will carry on without any of our personal opinions in a few decades time, and will lose no sleep over it.


Why dont I give lots of links?

1. Because its all been written about, I've got little or nothing original to add, and anyone that reads the subject properly will find all the arguments. Only if I've written something I've not seen discussed elsewhere will I give a link to it. And those times are very few.

2. I'm not out to change the world.

3. I do have other things to do and they do take priority.


NT

 

[NT]

Biff:

The demographers seem pretty confident that population will reach about 9 billion around the middle of this century but is likely to stabilize at about that level and not increase much further. That's the model based on no doomsday dieoffs following bird flu, Peak Oil or whatever.

Thats a curious thing to refer to. Human populations have always showed 2 trends very clearly:
a) the population steadily expands to take up the food resources available
b) technology always develops over time, the result of which is always the ability to produce more food as time goes by.

AFAIK these trends have never stopped, and there is nothing that realistically says they will do so.

There are local factors that can reduce populations of limited size, but no global factors, nothing that reduces or stabilises world population.

So to place faith in what you did strikes me as curious.


NT

 

[NT]

In a business as fairly usual future we could probably feed 9 billion quite comfortably, given a more equable distribution of resources and a few less beefburgers.

... without the least difficulty. Crop yields vary widely by species, and producing more of the high yield and less of the low could give us many times what we produce today. Then there are growing resources, only a small fraction of which are used today.

And I havent even addressed the likely change of sea use from present hunter-gatherer methods to farming, which would bring in massive fish yields, nor the chnge from animal based diets to mostly plant based, which would also increase food yields substantially.

Even if all technological progress were to stop dead today, the world population would continue to gradually expand to many 10s of billions, and possibly more.

Climate change is a rather big spanner in the agricultural works.

Is it? Do you not think there will be enough crop growing land around the world? Enough technology or money to water it in dry regions?

If we look at the long term future, what will happen when the planet supports 100s of bilions of people, farming will have moved by then from expensive land to high rise buildings. Crops in these buildings will be watered by treated seawater, or maybe greywater, and be lit mostly by elecrtic light. We actually have all the technology to do that today, plus many other tricks, so we could support huge levels of population expansion, even on todays technology.


NT

 

[NT]

Nemesis:

Just cos that bomb didn't drop isn't any reason to think none ever will.

In the case of the climate disaster, the absence of any genuinely sound evidence is. The climate change predictions are borne wholly from data and reasoning, and that reasoning is flawed. There is nothing else to support it. OTOH there is evidence that climate fluctuations are something both the earth and our society have successfully lived through before.


NT