Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: acsinuk on 06/12/2016 11:44:19
-
Let me explain my thinking.
Human and animals breath in oxygenated air and exhaust CO^2
Trees and flora breath in carbon dioxide CO^2 and exhaust oxygen
To balance more human/animals then more trees/grass are needed
But look at what is happening, we are clearing forests and building over the land at the same time as expanding not only the human population but also the animal to feed us with proteins. We are out of balance and car and power station emissions are just a marginal add on problem.
-
Simple answer: yes, population is the problem.
This is the case put forward recently by Cambridge University's Doug Crawford-Brown:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/1000816/
chris
-
car emissions are still a significant part of the problem, as they account for about 1/4 of green house gas emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
People run at about 100 W each, and say there are 8 billion people, that would be 800 GW, a mere 5% of the global 17 TW energy budget, so even if population doubles, the added metabolisms will be responsible for only a fraction of the new energy budget. We need to learn how to use less energy per person, and decrease the impact of sourcing and using that energy, and we need to decrease the population. Focusing on only one, will get us no where.
-
People eating locally grown food don't, in principle, contribute directly to global warming.
The heat we produce- about 100 watts is essentially borrowed sunlight. The plants we ate got it and handed it on to us. In the end, all that energy will degrade to heat and it wouldn't matter much if we were here or not (not least because, in our absence, something else would eat the plants.
However, we do a couple of things that do matter; we burn fossil fuels and we create greenhouse gases.
Those do both warm up the planet- particularly the second one.
-
I don't think the CO2 that humans emit has a noticeable effect but the methane a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 produced by cattle has some effect
-
It's nothing to do with what we eat and breathe; the simple answer is that, if there were not 7.2+ billion people there wouldn't be a problem... cars, cows, houses are all just a product of the number of people. Fewer people equals fewer emissions, regardless of origin.
-
Your question pre-supposes that a slightly warmer world is a significant problem.
How would such a slightly warmer, slightly wetter, significantly more fertile and very slightly more sea defences world cause you trouble?
-
Several related problems.
1. We don't need people. Youth unemployment in Italy is now around 40%. either we need a significant cultural change away from "work is good for you" or we need to stop making more people than are required to keep the lights on and food in the larder. 80% of the Ugandan population works on the land, in a better climate for agriculture than the UK, but there are frequent food shortages. Less than 5% of the UK population works on the land, and we could be selfsufficient if we didn't have a taste for tropical fruit and out-of-season asparagus. Robots, not people, build cars.
2. "Slightly more sea defences" means, for a start, building a huge dam around Bangladesh, without which it is probable that about 80,000,000 people in that country alone will lose their land and livelihood, leading to a migration way more troublesome than anything seen in nature to date.
3. Significantly more fertile in the arctic and subarctic regions is fine if you live in northern Europe, but the outward spread of fertility will be accompanied by an expansion of the dry deserts, leading to a zillion or so starving Africans and Indians on the march towards a colder climate, because all the water on the planet already exists, so climate change will just redistribute it to the already-wealthy.
I see the problems of climate change being mostly those of redistribution, which would be a lot less troublesome with fewer people involved.
-
I don't think the figure of 40% youth unemployment should be taken to seriously the Italians are very skilled at tax avoidance many of the 40% are simply self employed.
-
To reiterate my long labored point.. Global warming does not exist.. Climate Change is the correct term. (since more and more evidence is showing that it will be an ice age that we may be triggering, it is very pertinent to stress this)
The question tries to separate two linked factors, over population and motor cars.. these are undeniably linked. The more motor cars you have the higher the density of population can exist, the higher the density of population the larger the number of motor cars. So splitting these factors is impossible.
And then you enter the argument of where the climate change is man made or not, lets take the PC and general belief that it is caused by human activity.
Motor cars are only part of what contribute to the environmental impact from humans, electricity, clothing, house building, steel works and all industry in one way or another (yes including farming, some think ESPECIALLY farming) all of which develop due to increasing population and allow further increases to population (such as pharma)..
So basically yes, overpopulation rather than motor vehicles alone, is a good answer to your question.
(I still remember in university stressing to my lecturer that using the environment as a dumping ground for all heat and waste gasses was unsustainable and would have impacts, the small minded professor said that there was nothing we could do to such a huge mass that would impact it in any significant way...)
Trees and Flora do not breath carbon dioxide... they breathe oxygen like the rest of us.. they photosynthesize with carbon dioxide top make their energy so using CO2 and they respirate? Respire? breathe.. oxygen and emit carbon dioxide.
-
2. "Slightly more sea defences" means, for a start, building a huge dam around Bangladesh, without which it is probable that about 80,000,000 people in that country alone will lose their land and livelihood, leading to a migration way more troublesome than anything seen in nature to date.
3. Significantly more fertile in the arctic and subarctic regions is fine if you live in northern Europe, but the outward spread of fertility will be accompanied by an expansion of the dry deserts, leading to a zillion or so starving Africans and Indians on the march towards a colder climate, because all the water on the planet already exists, so climate change will just redistribute it to the already-wealthy.
2, Bangladesh gets at least 2cm of sediment deposited on it every monsoon. Bangladesh will be bigger in 2200 than now.
3, In previous times of hotter climate the Sahara was grass land and wood land. India was wetter than now. The Fertile crescent was green and lush.
-
Your question pre-supposes that a slightly warmer world is a significant problem.
How would such a slightly warmer, slightly wetter, significantly more fertile and very slightly more sea defences world cause you trouble?
The problem isn't that a warmer and wetter climate would be worse (if that is where we are headed). The major issue is the rate of change, and the extent to which the ecosystems are able to adapt. Most people dramatically underestimate the economic value of the ecosystem as it is now--it recycles the air, cleans the water, provides food, erosion control etc. And, while a stable system can exist for most climates we could expect to have in the next several million years, changing from one system to another in a short amount of time is likely to cause significant failures. And, although it will probably regain balance, a 2000-year gap (which would be miraculously swift recovery) could easily spell the end for civilization as we know it.
-
One example of manmade change is in Australia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia)
Imagine the rate of change in the climate wiped out some insect predator so that all your crops got eaten because of being swamped by an out of control insect population. They have done experiments where they excluded small animals from an area and the plant species changed radically. This could give rise to an explosion of species that are undesirable. Not my idea of a better future. Look into it. It's scary Mr Plumber.
-
Your question pre-supposes that a slightly warmer world is a significant problem.
How would such a slightly warmer, slightly wetter, significantly more fertile and very slightly more sea defences world cause you trouble?
The problem isn't that a warmer and wetter climate would be worse (if that is where we are headed). The major issue is the rate of change, and the extent to which the ecosystems are able to adapt. Most people dramatically underestimate the economic value of the ecosystem as it is now--it recycles the air, cleans the water, provides food, erosion control etc. And, while a stable system can exist for most climates we could expect to have in the next several million years, changing from one system to another in a short amount of time is likely to cause significant failures. And, although it will probably regain balance, a 2000-year gap (which would be miraculously swift recovery) could easily spell the end for civilization as we know it.
Dear God!!!
In 1976 we in the UK had a very hot and dry summer. Whilst there were water shortages, we have a long history of under investment here, Britian did not collapse. The ecosystem did not fall over. There were no mass extinctions. Even though the previous winter was particularly harsh. We managed fine. So did the wildlife over all.
The difference between particular years is far higher than the predicted maximum changes.
Will the slow change from what you have now to the climate 200 miles to the south of you make that great a difference to you?
-
One example of manmade change is in Australia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia)
Imagine the rate of change in the climate wiped out some insect predator so that all your crops got eaten because of being swamped by an out of control insect population. They have done experiments where they excluded small animals from an area and the plant species changed radically. This could give rise to an explosion of species that are undesirable. Not my idea of a better future. Look into it. It's scary Mr Plumber.
1, It's not that scary.
2, The effects of land miss-use and invaisive species are indeed great. Much more than a slightly warmer climate.
Having a swarm of locust land on your crops is very bad. Especially when you cannot use the pesticides you need to kill them because the world will not allow you to use fossil fuels to transport them and to fly the crop dusting aircraft.
-
Mr Plumber you are like a politician. Very short term views. Changes in the water cycle will be the real killer blow. Not how hot it gets. When the land is dust it takes more to feed your animals than it is worth. You have to buy the feed from elsewhere if you have the money. Michael Burke stood on a plain in Ethiopia reporting on such conditions. Since then Ethiopia has had a lot of the same to deal with. When the Spanish deserts start expanding there may be the start of a migration. Changes in environment move people around or they die.
-
Let me explain my thinking.
Human and animals breath in oxygenated air and exhaust CO^2
Trees and flora breath in carbon dioxide CO^2 and exhaust oxygen
You neglected to mention the CO2 absorption by the ocean which is not a small contributor. It takes up 26% of the CO2. See: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/
-
Dear God!!!
In 1976 we in the UK had a very hot and dry summer. Whilst there were water shortages, we have a long history of under investment here, Britian did not collapse. The ecosystem did not fall over. There were no mass extinctions. Even though the previous winter was particularly harsh. We managed fine. So did the wildlife over all.
Wow!
It's as if you think that a 3 month blip is the same as a permanent change (or do you know that there's a difference, but choose to misrepresent it)
-
Mr Plumber you are like a politician. Very short term views. Changes in the water cycle will be the real killer blow. Not how hot it gets. When the land is dust it takes more to feed your animals than it is worth. You have to buy the feed from elsewhere if you have the money. Michael Burke stood on a plain in Ethiopia reporting on such conditions. Since then Ethiopia has had a lot of the same to deal with. When the Spanish deserts start expanding there may be the start of a migration. Changes in environment move people around or they die.
1, California is naturally a desert.
2, The periods of warm climate are associated with wetter conditions. Generally.
3, During the holocene optimal, so named because it was the optimal climate for humans, the Sahara was a land of lakes, woods and grassland.
-
Regardless of who the plumber is... The Earth has a warming trend going on. 2015 was the hottest on record, soon to be replace by 2016, AFAIK.
Sea ice is in, a seemingly horrifying, melting trend... It's not news in US of America for some reason I can only theorize and it behooves me. Perhaps NASA & NOAA and a bunch of schools have a data conspiracy thing going on, trying to inflate their global monitoring budgets... I kinda doubt it, but it could be...
This study seems somewhat Germane to the topic at hand.
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/03/study-links-human-actions-to-specific-arctic-sea-ice-melt/
-
Dear God!!!
In 1976 we in the UK had a very hot and dry summer. Whilst there were water shortages, we have a long history of under investment here, Britian did not collapse. The ecosystem did not fall over. There were no mass extinctions. Even though the previous winter was particularly harsh. We managed fine. So did the wildlife over all.
Wow!
It's as if you think that a 3 month blip is the same as a permanent change (or do you know that there's a difference, but choose to misrepresent it)
Given that the anual variation from year to year is very often far more pronounced than the degree of temperature chenge predicted for any location why do you think there is a massive problem?
I get that there are those people who cannot deal with the idea of change at all. I get that there are those who prefer to think that we are all doomed. I get tha there are those who are communist and will jump on any band waggon.
But I don't get why people want to kill millions of people for the sake of not really avoiding a none problem.
Today we use loads of food as fuel. Bio-fuel. This has raised the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. The effect on the poorest billion people on the planet is that, my guess, at least 20 million of them die extra per year.
The next poorest billion are locked into the poverty they are in.
The rich world's rich farmers get more money than they other wise would.
-
Regardless of who the plumber is... The Earth has a warming trend going on. 2015 was the hottest on record, soon to be replace by 2016, AFAIK.
Sea ice is in, a seemingly horrifying, melting trend... It's not news in US of America for some reason I can only theorize and it behooves me. Perhaps NASA & NOAA and a bunch of schools have a data conspiracy thing going on, trying to inflate their global monitoring budgets... I kinda doubt it, but it could be...
This study seems somewhat Germane to the topic at hand.
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/03/study-links-human-actions-to-specific-arctic-sea-ice-melt/
I care about people dying at a rate faster than ever happened in WWII. I dont't care about sea ice that has no effect on sae level and no other significant effect.
-
I care about people dying at a rate faster than ever happened in WWII. I dont't care about sea ice that has no effect on sae level and no other significant effect.
It's really hard to track deaths do to climate change because many are simply not reported in US media. US media seems to have a ban on "climate" related news. Heat waves didn't reach WWII casualties, so I suppose it's not something you would care about. However, the Arctic air being pushed further south will cause cold related deaths which also won't likely be linked to "climate change".
The average 3mm annual sea level rise doens't impact many communities all at once, but this year will likely change that. The Arctic and Antarctic regions are experiencing rather unusual ice reductions, which may (or may not) register greater than 3mm annual sea level rise.
At present total polar sea ice area/extent is 1 month off schedule. It's not been recorded before, so when we hit February low, we have have a February high sea level. I don't know. I've been told the area/extent doesn't contribute to sea level change... I believe we'll see what happens come February/March...
Tho president elect Trump will probably suppress such information, to the best of his administrations ability...
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_area_byyear_b.png
-
I care about people dying at a rate faster than ever happened in WWII. I dont't care about sea ice that has no effect on sae level and no other significant effect.
It's really hard to track deaths do to climate change because many are simply not reported in US media. US media seems to have a ban on "climate" related news. Heat waves didn't reach WWII casualties, so I suppose it's not something you would care about. However, the Arctic air being pushed further south will cause cold related deaths which also won't likely be linked to "climate change".
The average 3mm annual sea level rise doens't impact many communities all at once, but this year will likely change that. The Arctic and Antarctic regions are experiencing rather unusual ice reductions, which may (or may not) register greater than 3mm annual sea level rise.
At present total polar sea ice area/extent is 1 month off schedule. It's not been recorded before, so when we hit February low, we have have a February high sea level. I don't know. I've been told the area/extent doesn't contribute to sea level change... I believe we'll see what happens come February/March...
Tho president elect Trump will probably suppress such information, to the best of his administrations ability...
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_area_byyear_b.png
Given sea ice is floating it will not effect sea level at all when it either melts or freezes.
If you live on land that is likely to be flooded by a 3mm sea level rise it is not land in the first place but you can make it land with a shovel and sme work to build some sea defences.
-
However one looks at it we're the ones that change our world. And the more we become the worse it gets. We're doing so out of natural instincts, substituting/sublimating those into what the world (that's us) define as worthwhile. Money is not something existing by itself, but greed do exist in each one of us. So we use symbols of different kinds to impress each other, and award ourselves. We've just chosen the wrong ones
-
However one looks at it we're the ones that change our world. And the more we become the worse it gets. We're doing so out of natural instincts, substituting/sublimating those into what the world (that's us) define as worthwhile. Money is not something existing by itself, but greed do exist in each one of us. So we use symbols of different kinds to impress each other, and award ourselves. We've just chosen the wrong ones
In Holland half the land has been changed from sea to land over many centuries of work by the Dutch because they wanted more farmland to grow food.
I think this is a good thing.
Given that some of this land that was sea is 11m below sea level an extra 1m of sea level rise will not cause much difficulty for the Dutch. As long as they have cheap power to pump the water out of course.
-
Well, human ingenuity may solve this too :)
Depending on global warming's time table, and severity.
-
I don't think the figure of 40% youth unemployment should be taken to seriously the Italians are very skilled at tax avoidance many of the 40% are simply self employed.
What do you see as being the principal single threat?
Please keep it to just one threat as otherwise the topic will explode.
-
The threat of Italians. They always stop Germany winning.