Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: acsinuk on 07/08/2022 13:49:20
-
Politicians should not panic about warming as it is a natural reaction to the increase in world population.
There are 4 times as many people now that in 1945 at end of WW2 who need to be fed with carbohydrates, meat and live in new warm houses and drive cars to work. It is their human right to have all these things.
So the increase in CO2 is to be expected as a necessity and we must live with it.
But hydrocarbon fuels must be preserved for transport and as much solar, wind , tidal, nuclear developed for electric and heat generation as is financial practical but not by expensive panic investments.
Sea weeds like kelp are ideal for sequesting carbon dioxide into the oceans and these grow extremely quickly.
See
So CO2 is not so much a problem but we must bubble the CO2 from power plants into deep sea water which is a slow process but possible but what of the sea level rises?
"The PSMSL WWW page reports the 2013 IPCC WG1 statement that
"It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm/yr between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period"
So it looks as if the sea rise will be around 36 mm per decade or one and a half inches which should be easily containable.
We must live with that climate change until we can slow world population growth. Now the saving grace is that fully industrialised nations have a negative population growth rate because educated people realize that having more than 2 children is expensive.
Thus the need to educate developing economies and encourage family planning is thus obviously the way forward to improve their standard of living with all the advantages of high standards of living that prosperous states provide..
-
How did you come to the conclusion that you understand this issue better than all the professionals?
-
...said the Pope to Galileo.
Problem is that there is no money to be made from a declining population, or from claiming that there is no impending crisis, and every politician has to say "growth" ten times a day to earn his salary. The teeming masses have every right to want a western standard of living, and that can't be achieved with renewable energy alone, so fossil fuel consumption must rise until it is all exhausted. So we are doomed in the short or long term.
If the emperor has no clothes, it is up to everyone to say so. And just for once, acsinuk has said it.
-
Correct Alan,
Politicians must serve their electorate by explaining to people that if they only have 2 children then when they die they can pass their house onto one of their children. The result is that on average only a few new improved replacement homes have to be built and the existing roads, water and electric infrastructure maintained.
Scandinavian countries do this and have amongst others the highest standard of living in the world. Large organisations trying to increase their market share can still influence decision makers by offering incentives but the basic economy will remain sound but with developing countries instability will arise.due to inflation of construction materials.
-
I agree the population is out of control.Electric vehicles are a bandaid solution that won't save the planet.The more people the more demand as we can see with higher prices.A loaf of bread was 20 cents in 1970.There is a housing crisis we can't build them fast enough.There is also a huge movement of people in the world that no one wants.It just seems we have the blinders on I don't know how someone could say its not a problem.People are looked at as consumers when thats how you look at things you want more people.Unfortunately thats how we see it.Its a very selfish way of looking at things.Everything is done for profit try and get in the way of that and you will be shut down.
I truly believe certain tech has been buried due to big oil.Edison said to Telsa who promised free energy not if we can't put a meter on it.
If someone came up with a free clean energy source they would disappear with their tech because of the sheer volume of money involved you would be killed.
-
Population explosion in Sudan and south Sahara is causing huge problems as modern farming techniques need water which means that larger than ever, traditional nomadic families have nowhere to water their camels and flocks of sheep and many land up in refugee camps. They are starving and feel totally neglected but as most have had no education become understandable desperate.
Aid agencies can assist but this may only exasperate their problem if the refugees continue to producing more children as is happening in Cox's Bazaar and other refugee camps in Syria, Afghanistan etc.
I know that providing food aid that is impregnated with a contraceptive agent is controversial but it is really necessary.
This, along with equipment to drill fresh water wells, tractors to plant seed, solar panels and car batteries for light and communications already supplied would reduce the number of starving babies we see on TV and allow the refugees to build homes and feed themselves and thus start to eat food that is not impregnated.
-
I know that providing food aid that is impregnated with a contraceptive agent is controversial but it is really necessary.
Take a long careful look at yourself.
-
I know that providing food aid that is impregnated with a contraceptive agent is controversial but it is really necessary.
But unethical.
What is needed is to replace religion with education, provide free contraception to anyone who wants it, and make it clear to everyone that you and you alone are responsible for the production and welfare of your children.
-
Agreed, the bill of rights appears to give a husband congugal rights over his wife. However, surely the wife should have the right to access free contraception as well as abortions.
Most countries offer residents a free national health service which soon becomes overloaded when really they should be giving free contraception to obviate the increase in population that is the root cause of the overload.
Oxfam and other charity agencies should insist that countries who apply for famine aid have or are passing a law that free contraception is available to any and all women before sending food aid that is only exasperating their problem.
-
Agreed, the bill of rights appears to give a husband congugal rights over his wife.
The law in civilised countries does not.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-law-rape-within-marriage
However, surely the wife should have the right to access free contraception as well as abortions.
Yes, but "right to access" is nothing like
providing food aid that is impregnated with a contraceptive agent
is it?
One involves choice.
Most countries offer residents a free national health service which soon becomes overloaded when really they should be giving free contraception
In the UK and, I believe, most Western countries, contraception is free.
Ask at your local family planning clinic.
food aid that is only exasperating their problem.
Food doesn't exacerbate (note the spelling, btw) the problem.
It stops people starving.
The usual problem is exploitation by rich countries.
-
I dispute the last point. It is far from clear that all African people have prospered since the British left. Internal corruption, tribalism, and the malign influence of religion have caused more harm and killed more people than the colonists ever did. Much the same could be said for the partitioning of India.
-
I dispute the last point. It is far from clear that all African people have prospered since the British left. Internal corruption, tribalism, and the malign influence of religion have caused more harm and killed more people than the colonists ever did. Much the same could be said for the partitioning of India.
Do you know how much water we "import" from southern Africa?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water
What does "since the British left." have to do with it?
-
Freedom is Not worth having, if it does not Include the Freedom to make Mistakes.
🕊️
-
Having just wintered in New Zealand I have noticed that the sunsets are no longer vivid but occur more frequently and are/have a washed out look. Could this be due to more CO2 in the atmosphere? Anyone else noticed this effect which might be linked to global warming and the intensification of the hurricanes we have just experienced.
-
sunsets are no longer vivid but occur more frequently
The occur once a day.
-
CO2 has even less impact on the visible spectrum than it does in the infrared.
-
Politicians should not panic about warming as it is a natural reaction to the increase in world population.
So is extinction.
There are 4 times as many people now that in 1945 at end of WW2 who need to be fed with carbohydrates, meat and live in new warm houses and drive cars to work. It is their human right to have all these things.
There is no human rights clause in the laws of physics.
So the increase in CO2 is to be expected as a necessity and we must live with it.
So human rights extend to owning a home, but not to having it safe from burning down in a wildfire.
Sea weeds like kelp are ideal for sequesting carbon dioxide into the oceans and these grow extremely quickly.
Once the seaweed has grown to maturity, where do you store it all to prevent it from releasing the carbon as it decomposes, and to make space for the next generation of seaweed that's going to absorb the next batch of carbon emissions?
So it looks as if the sea rise will be around 36 mm per decade or one and a half inches which should be easily containable.
That's not a very long term argument. There are plenty of maps published showing how much of the land mass will be under water by the time sea level rise is done.
Thus the need to educate developing economies and encourage family planning is thus obviously the way forward
Keep up, Hans Rosling explains here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E&t=1230s)that the birth rate already is under control, and the present rise in population is what's already baked in to the system as todays kids grow up and have kids of their own. If the birth rate doesn't go back up again for any reason, the population will stabilise at ~ 11bn.
improve their standard of living with all the advantages of high standards of living that prosperous states provide..
The problem is that 12% of the population is hogging 85% of the wealth (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/WealthDistribution_Edits_1200_OL.jpg). With a fairly trivial cut in consumption by the rich, the poor can enjoy a huge increase in living standards without any increase in cabon emissions.
What's needed is a means of curbing economic growth, because that's what's ultimately unsustainable, and as someone above said, that's always taken as a prerequisite for entry into political circles. We need to learn to take the benefit of productivity improvements as an increase in leisure time instead of an increase in consumption, but to stand any chance of making some headway in that direction requires some understanding of the psychology of status competition among both politicians and the general population.
We're locked into this endless cycle of consuming more and more because a consumer society is one in which people's satus is determined by how much they consume: the Jones's are only content when they have a bigger car than the Smiths, and the Smiths when they have a bigger car than the Jones's etc. The obvious problem is that this is a zero-sum game, because no amount of wealth can ever satisfy both the Jones's and the Smiths at the same time, and so the cycle of waste just gets perpetuated.
Ending climate change depends on ending growth, and ending growth depends on dealing with status competition in a less destructive way, but consumption is a more powerful status symbol than leisure time.
-
BTW...What is the Worst that could happen if We take No measure to curb Climate Change & Global Warming?
What's the max Scale or Magnitude of Destruction...
Earth turns into Venus?
-
Since there is no effective measure that can be taken, our descendants will find out in the next 100 - 500 years or so.
My best guess is that it will get a bit hotter, several billion people will die from starvation, a few million will die from wars caused by mass migration, and then it will begin to get colder again.
Nature is indifferent as to the fate of any particular species, and homo sapiens is more fragile than most.
-
Hmm...& How about if All of the Polar Ice Caps & All Glaciers meltdown?
What's the scale or altitude of Doom?
Mount Everest goes underwater eh?
-
Just noticed this old topic that I have not followed up on.
Well, global warming which is caused by population explosion; particularly in Sahara and desert regions is now causing huge problems with millions of displaced people now living in refugee camps even whole cities like Cox bazaar and Gaza.
If we look at the statistics on the worldometer site
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
we can see that the fertility rate column shows which countries are responsible and have more than 2 children per family.
The UN world health organisation WHO needs to address this problem head on at it receives over $6 billion annually but instead of providing free contraceptives and vasectomies to these third world countries it is just supplying free drugs and food which just makes the situation worse as it wrecks their agricultural economies and self sufficiency with the result being the creation of refugee cities like Gaza.
-
global warming which is caused by population explosion;
No, not really.
-
the result being the creation of refugee cities like Gaza.
How did you rule out the actions of the government of Israel in the creation of refugees in Gaza?
-
If anything, the blame lies with the British government in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Or possibly every parasite in history who invented or promoted a religion and/or suggested it was an excuse for politics and hatred.
-
However, back to the subject.
Climate change during the last 50,000 years has for the most part favored the top land predator, homo sapiens, with rapidly increasing temperatures pushing back the ice sheets and allowing agriculture to dominate over hunting as the primary food source.
Problem is that as the temperate and fertile belt continues to move towards the poles so the area of cultivable land will decrease and conditions for the very large human population of the tropics will become increasingly intolerable.
So the longterm effect of the current warming phase will be a humanitarian disaster. For the next 500 years or so the temperature will continue to rise and the tropics will become uninhabitable or at least unable to sustain their current human population, and thereafter our descendants can expect to see a gradual return of the ice ages over the following 100,000 years, with the population of the temperate and polar latitudes being unable to feed themselves at present densities.
The sawtooth nature of the temperature/time curve is such that we are currently experiencing the most acute and obvious changes of climate but fortunately we have enough historic data to be fairly confident in making a longterm prediction and doing something to mitigate the consequences for our species and all those that we prey on.
Acsin has spotted an inevitable association between population density and climate-determined misery, but has muddled cause and effect.
-
Both cause and effect just show that an expanding population leads to much more CO2 being emitted not only by us but the animals we eat and the energy we use to build houses, roads, water mains, sewers to service the expansion.
If a country has a fertility rate that exceeds 4 it must double its houses every 20 years which is economically almost impossible to sustain. Failure to keep up will lead to homelessness, shanty towns and huge public discontent with people blaming the government of failure or favouritism .
This will lead to ethnic groups competing for land and water rights which if armed groups emerge as we are seeing in the Sahara and middle east is disastrous.
Thousands of people are displaced and move into refugee camps with no future which is tragic but is the result of too many children. A disaster which surely the UN must solve and quickly.
-
CO2 is irrelevant to climate change, as the historic record shows. It is an effect, not a cause. But it is a measure of the rate of consumption of fuel of all kinds, and the balance between plant and animal populations.
Given that fossil fuels are a limited resource and the plant/animal balance has been so distorted by human activity, the forthcoming human disaster has certainly been accelerated by humans.
-
CO2 is irrelevant to climate change
Got evidence?
As I have said before, your claim sounds like someone saying "I know that it's warmer, and I know we put an extra blanket on the bed, but I refuse to believe that these two facts are related."
If anything, the blame lies with the British government in the 1917 Balfour Declaration.
I think you will find they are all dead.
Is there anyone whose current actions are affecting the outcome?
-
And if we put another blanket on top of that, it won't have as much effect. But never mind the physics - there is money to be made.
As for Balfour, I rather think that whatever religious perverts want to eradicate the State of Israel and make women cover their faces in the Name of the Absurd Hypothesis, are contributing to man-made problem rather than help solve it.
-
it won't have as much effect.
"not as much" is not zero.
-
At the current level of spectral saturation, even a doubling would be insignificant. But fossil fuels will in any case disappear over then next 200 - 500 years and if the human population and its taste for farmed meat are not controlled, the agricultural disaster will occur regardless of climate.
The climate cycle itself is of academic interest. If CO2 drives temperature, the unanswered (and usually unasked) question is why there has been a consistent 100,000 year CO2 cycle, characterised by rapid rises and slow declines with quite rigid upper and lower limits, and no correlation with e.g. volcanic ash deposits.
-
At the current level of spectral saturation, even a doubling would be insignificant. But fossil fuels will in any case disappear over then next 200 - 500 years and if the human population and its taste for farmed meat are not controlled, the agricultural disaster will occur regardless of climate.
The climate cycle itself is of academic interest. If CO2 drives temperature, the unanswered (and usually unasked) question is why there has been a consistent 100,000 year CO2 cycle, characterised by rapid rises and slow declines with quite rigid upper and lower limits, and no correlation with e.g. volcanic ash deposits.
It has been explained to you that the saturation of the spectrum is irrelevant.
Just to pick a number, let's say that there's some wavelength where the 1% absorption path of a photon is 1 km.
And there's roughly 100 km between us and space (Yes, I know it gets less dense, but you can allow for that. The idea still works).
After rising up (on average) 1km a photon has a 1% chance of being absorbed.
But it could be re-radiated and there's a roughly 50% chance it will be sent back down again.
Also, the excited state could lose energy by transfer to another atom or molecule (not necessarily CO2)
And that warms the atmosphere "near" the earth in addition to simple conduction or convection.
The same thing happens in the next 1km layer and the one after and so on.
So, for a photon at that wavelength to escape it needs to pass through (simplistically) 100 layers
But if you increase the CO2 concentration by 33% or so you reduce the chance of the photon getting through the air.
In effect, you make the "1% absorption layer" thinner.
So there are now 33 more "layers" for it to get through.
So the energy on its way out gets coupled to the air 33 more times and that makes it harder for any given "bit" of thermal energy to escape.
That happens at any and every wavelength where there's significant absorption of IR.
If the IR is strongly absorbed, then the layers are thinner. But raising the CO2 concentration by a third still increases the number of interactions by a third.
As
https://history.aip.org/climate/simple.htm#L_0141
puts it "What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which part of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are thinner and colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as efficiently.(11a*) The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the upper levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the upper levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.
While that may sound fairly simple once it is explained, the process is not obvious if you have started by thinking of the atmosphere from below as a single slab. The correct way of thinking eluded nearly all scientists for more than a century after Fourier. Physicists learned only gradually how to describe the greenhouse effect. To do so, they had to make detailed calculations of a variety of processes in each layer of the atmosphere, such as convection (the transfer of heat by rising columns of air). (For more on absorption of infrared by gas molecules)"
So, we should never hear from you again about saturated trransitions.
-
Yes, the ice record does seem to go in 100,000 year cycles but has never been as high as 415. See records graph
https://johnenglander.net/chart-of-420000-year-history-temperature-co2-sea-level/
This probably means that the ratio of vegetation to animal/mammals has never been so unbalanced before.
The planet needs to balance CO2 in atmosphere to O2 because too much oxygen would increase the fire risk of incinerating everything. The planet can balance too much vegetation by icing over the northern and southern polar tundra areas so plants cannot live and emit oxygen. However, too many humans/animals will need more food to grow so planet will increase the area vegetation can live in by global warming caused by extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
So global warming is caused by increased CO2 in atmosphere due to a super abundance of people and animals which requires UN acknowledgement and then action, by encouraging family sizes not exceed 2 children with free aid to achieve this objective using some of its $50 billion funding.
CliveS
-
This probably means that the ratio of vegetation to animal/mammals has never been so unbalanced before.
No, it means we burned a lot of fossil fuels.
We know this because we have the tax records which prove it.
So global warming is caused by increased CO2 in atmosphere due to a super abundance of people and animals
Not really. If we could magically replace our current and historical use of fossil fuels by solar or nuclear power then the oil/ oil would be in the ground, and the carbon wouldn't be in the air. And that would annul the greenhouse effect.
There are clearly problems with having too many people- and we need to address them.
But the greenhouse effect is not a direct, inevitable, outcome of a given size of human population.
-
If we could magically replace our current and historical use of fossil fuels by solar or nuclear power then the oil/ oil would be in the ground, and the carbon wouldn't be in the air. And that would annul the greenhouse effect.
But the oil was in the ground 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 and 400,000 years ago, and still the global mean temperature oscillated through a range of 10 - 12 degrees, with [CO2] lagging the temperature graph. So removing the CO2 from fossil fuels isn't going to "annul" the greenhouse effect.
-
I seem to remember that the co2 levels are within the margin of error for historic highs. Also as co2 peaks, temperature comes down in a crash, so that may be what happens.
-
No, temperature rises rapidly (as it is doing now) over a couple of thousand years, then falls slowly over about 100,000 years. Civilisation evolved from the last ice age exactly on schedule.
-
Well, only human people can light fires and burn fuel to keep warm, cook, burn lime for cement, drive cars, tractors and cranes etc. so the more people the more CO2 in the air.
Any remains from civilization 100,000 years would be buried only within 1 metre of surface but there are none to suggest a previous civilization.
We know from archaeology that the remains of the past are buried down 1 metre for every million years. The grand canyon is 2 kilometres deep so bottom is 2 billion years old. The first living organism appeared at the seaside 600 million years ago and is at 600 metre depth.
Human population increase is causing climate change and UN must find a way of saving the planet before we run out of fuel
-
The historical record over the last 450,000 years shows that humans played no part in four previous climate changes of exactly the sort that is happening now, with similar rises in temperature and CO2 concentration over a period of about 5,000 years followed by a slow asymptotic decline over then next 100,000 years.
It is therefore unlikely that humans are a significant cause now, but almost certain that humans will suffer from the effect.
-
The historical record over the last 450,000 years shows
It shows no time when CO2 levels rose as fast as they are doing today.
This is the first time this has happened.
It may well be the last.
It is not helpful to pretend "we survived it last time".
Ther was no "last time".
-
We didn't survive last time. Most of us weren't here 130,000 years ago (when [CO2] was rising as quickly as at present). The entire human population probably numbered less than 200,000.
By 20,000 years ago the world was in the grip of the last ice age, so the UK at least was pretty well uninhabitable.
If nothing changes, most of us won't survive the next 500 years either, because there are just too many of us for a hot world to support.
And when it starts to cool down again, religion and politics will precipitate mass slaughter as the northern tribes try to migrate southwards.
-
Most of us weren't here 130,000 years ago (when [CO2] was rising as quickly as at present).
STOP SAYING THAT.
"Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years (Fig. 2). The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years."
from
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
-
Regardless of the fine detail, the fact remains that 1010 humans have never been exposed to a global maximum temperature previously, so there is no evidence that "we survived it last time". On the contrary, the last 2000 years or so have seen small "experiments" in Iceland, Easter Island, the Sahara, Oklahoma, and so on, where a relatively small and short-term shift in climate either devastated the (previously resilient and sustainable) population or initiated a major and unpopular migration.
That is my primary concern, and one that nobody else seems to be taking seriously.
-
Well done on missing the point and misinterpreting "we" in "we survived it last time".
You know perfectly well that I meant "humans survived it last time". Yes, the world is overpopulated.
It doesn't stop this
130,000 years ago (when [CO2] was rising as quickly as at present
being a lie.
-
"humans survived it last time".
Insert "some.." and note that even then, only because there were very few to start with, and they were highly mobile.
Repopulation won't be a problem over the next 100,000 years if any vestige of civilisation survives the Trumpf-Putain-Taliban era, but the intraspecies human carnage over the next five centuries will almost match the extinction of the dinosaurs, and our successors will have to compete with flies and cockroaches for food.
-
FFS!
Stop trying to miss the point.
It is not helpful to pretend "we humanity survived it last time".
There was no "last time".
-
I have never pretended or suggested that "humanity survived the last time". If it were so, I might not have consistently prophesied inevitable doom.
The last time temperatures were anywhere near this level was about 120,000 years ago. Whilst there is evidence of hominid fossils and stone tools dating back 300,000 years, it is also argued that the facial features would not be recognised as modern Man, and I tend towards to the view that if not homo sapiens , then at least what we recognise as civilisation, is a much more recent phenomenon, and in my view (which I have stated repeatedly) will not survive the next 500 years.
-
Every ice age, humans retreat to the Sahara, which becomes a lush and verdant vegetated paradise. Much like every "hot age" the cooler regions become viable living spaces. This of course happens over many many years, slower than buildings go out of fashion. No wonder Hair Trumpf wants to take over Greenland (which i assume he thinks is bigger than it is) and Canadia, they will soon be prime pieces of dwelling land.
-
The future does indeed look bleak if we cannot get the population explosion under control. The stats in
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html
The graph shows out of date trends but on right side we see that oil and coal are almost equal in tonnage used which is producing the CO2 and global warming. This is because coal or wood/charcoal are used to economically produce the cement and steel for the construction industry which consumes almost 50% of all fossil fuel.
Notice only about 25% of fuel is used for transport, the other 25% of the gas/oil going to power plants to produce electricity to keep us warm at home.
Electric cars may save 0.5% of oil energy but we need to save 50% by not having to build homes for the 700 million extra people being born each year. The graph shows Asia as main contributor but we know that Africa also needs some family planning assistance which surely the UN can supply.
-
Every ice age, humans retreat to the Sahara,
Indeed, but how many? Certainly not ten billion.
And the immediate problem is heat, not cold.
So it would make sense for defensible, cold, island nations (British Isles, New Zealand, Iceland....) to move to a sustainable population (Iceland and New Zealand are already there) and invest in their navies.
-
The last time temperatures were anywhere near this level was...
...not important because it's the rate of change that matters.
-
Correction to my last post, just realized that I have written 700 million extra people need houses instead of 70 million per year. But still, that means the world population is expanding each year by more people than live in the England.
Just imaging how much building is going on world wide each year and the amount of concrete and steel is needed!!
-
...not important because it's the rate of change that matters.
which was higher, and just as irrelevant, 240,000 years ago and several times in between.
Folk who keep picking over the minutiae are, I think, in panic denial of the obvious looming disaster. A very human failing: you could sacrifice a chicken to placate the rain gods, or build a boat, but after 50,000 years of civilisation, politicians, climate "scientists" and "activists" just argue about whose chicken to sacrifice.
-
Just imaging how much building is going on world wide each year and the amount of concrete and steel is needed!!
Thus generating almost as much CO2 as is needed to build electric cars. Not to mention railways to nowhere.
-
As i have said many times and many people before i was born, the earth cannot sustain 10 billion at this level of resource use even without a catastrophe. The human population does experience mass reduction in numbers, the Toba volcano 80,000 years ago was thought to have been one. It was an extremely quick "ice age like" event. I would imagine if global warming happens to the extent that is touted, we could slowly move further north until the next ice age. But I think global warming is the least of mankind's 10bn people problems.
-
So we all agree that global population explosion must be reduced but how??
The UN is the obvious choice but they appear to have placed it in their TOO DIFFICULT tray.
Well, maybe Trump can put some pressure on them to educate ordinary people in the tremendous advantages of having small families; so their kids can inherit their houses thus slowing building
My view is UN should supply free contraception along side existing medical aid. Use their $6 billion on saving the planet.
-
Well, maybe Trump can put some pressure on them
He will do that if he sees a personal profit in it.
My view is UN should supply free contraception along side existing medical aid.
Trump is cutting overseas aid, so he is doing the exact opposite of what you want to see.
The US president is not helping.
-
Frankly, most of the world is doomed by its adopted stupidity, but the British Isles are defensible and potentially sustainable by the simple procedure of paying women not to be pregnant, and the rather more difficult procedure of rebuilding the armed forces.
Trumpf's attitude to European affairs is consistent with American history in these matters - turn up late, and claim all the credit. It's a sideshow, but money talks, so many of my friends are simply boycotting American goods and services: McDonalds, Twitter, Esso, Tesla....you name it. It's good for your physical and mental health.
As for small families, the real President of the USA (Musk) has n children where n ≥ 13. Solution? He's part of the problem.
-
British Isles are defensible
We got to test that shortly after Brexit- using covid.
It didn't go well.
if president Musk had 14 wives and 13 children, he might actually be helping...
But, he's not.
-
You don't defend an island by failing to quarantine anyone entering from a suspect country.
IIRC most of the United Kingdom was fairly well defended between 1939 and 1945. Indeed the main island had not actually been invaded since 1797, and not successfully since 1066, until 2018.
-
Well, maybe Trump can put some pressure on them to educate ordinary people in the tremendous advantages of having small families;
You mean trumpf of multiple wives, Trumpf of the multiple children, trumpf of the Republican Christianity?
-
On the assumption that Trump/Musk can sought out the UN to give free family planning aids will reduce CO2 emissions and limit climate change as the fertility rate will be under 2 everywhere so children will be secure, by inheriting houses from parents.
From the planets point of view and best economics option; it would be convenient if people died off once they are no longer working; as we all will die in the end that is for sure.
Voluntary euthanasia for people over 75 should be encouraged in all civilised countries which will assist the NHS and paramedics there hugely. What is the point of keeping someone over 90 alive to suffer longer, when there is no chance of them ever being able to look after themselves at home??
-
On the assumption that Trump/Musk can sought out the UN
They won't; it's not profitable for them.
"Voluntary euthanasia for people over 75 should be encouraged "
Can Donald Trump (78) lead by example please?
Do you see now how, once you start "encouraging" euthanasia , it is no longer voluntary?
Please stop posting that sort of thing.
-
Voluntary euthanasia should be available to everyone, not just the old. But that won't solve the problem of thirst and starvation for the next 20 - 30 generations.
I'm somewhat baffled by Trumpf. In a nation where every citizen has the right to buy a precision automatic sniper rifle with his weekly groceries, how could anyone fail to kill an incontinent overweight fascist standing on a stage at 100 yard range?
-
which was higher, and just as irrelevant, 240,000 years ago and several times in between.
You keep saying that, but...
"Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years (Fig. 2). The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years."
from
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
Where's your data about rate of change of temp?
-
A competent scientist such as yourself can interpret rates of change from a graph. An experienced scientist such as myself recognises that sampled data cannot give you an accurate measure of instantaneous rate of change at any point in the past. A logical scientist, or even a lawyer, would ask whether you think that current temperature depends on the rate of change of [CO2] or the recent value of that parameter.
-
I have seen convincing arguments from both sides, ie those who say the temperature rise is associated with fossil fuel use and those who say it is not. As a result I am sitting on the fence as I am not competent to analyse such a complex problem(hope I don't get splinters in my derriere!!). Whatever the truth I cannot see anything being done about it. Basically we have two government systems on this planet, dictatorship and democracies(democracy called by Churchill as not the best system but the least worst). Dictators only care about themselves and are not concerned about the environment. In democracies the rate of reduction in fossil fuel use demanded by the climate scientists would raise the cost of living so much that no government employing these measures could hope to survive and would soon be replaced by a populist right wing outfit.
-
The current rise in temperature began at least 20,000 years ago when the entire human population numbered about 1,000,000. The graph of both temperature and [CO2] looks almost exactly the same as it did 120,000 years earlier and in at least two previous cycles to that.
I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to propose a causal relationship based solely on the scientific evidence attached hereto.
But the important question is what are you going to do to protect the next few generations from the medium-term effects? Given the half-life of atmospheric CO2 of 120 years, and the fact that up to 300 ppm is inevitable, I don't see that things would get any better for our grandchildren if we all stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow.
-
If we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow I believe our grandchildren would starve.
-
Unless we have fewer grandchildren and defend the land they live on.
I live on what used to be (until about 1950) a horse-operated farm, and I don't think the families that owned it for the previous 500 years actually starved. Indeed they, and a farm the other side of the river, managed to feed a thriving village and still export barley to London brewers.
-
Agreed, in the case you have illustrated. What percentage of the British people live in similar circumstances? Quite a small percentage, I would reckon. Or put another way what population do you think could be sustained with horse powered agriculture?
-
A competent scientist such as yourself can interpret rates of change from a graph. An experienced scientist such as myself recognises that sampled data cannot give you an accurate measure of instantaneous rate of change at any point in the past. A logical scientist, or even a lawyer, would ask whether you think that current temperature depends on the rate of change of [CO2] or the recent value of that parameter.
We are still waiting for the "experienced scientist" to demonstrate that they are competent.
In particular by explaining how a rise in CO2 could fail to produce an increase in temperature.
I'm not saying it's linear, nor am I saying that there aren't positive feedback mechanisms.
-
Where did the CO2 come from so suddenly, and go to so slowly, in previous cycles? There's no in-phase cyclic volcanic mechanism (and certainly no evidence of a sudden increase in volcanism at the end of the most recent ice age) or evidence of regular cometary impact (which would produce an even sharper rise in whatever).
Remembering that most animal biomass was coldblooded until the last 1000 years, you can postulate a simple mechanism where temperature determines the plant/animal balance and hence [CO2] and the inherent positive feedback of the [H2O] cycle then produces the observed phenomena.
Anyway, such a discussion is not even fiddling whilst Rome burns - it's arguing about who made the fiddle! The question is, what are we going to do about ten billion people inhabiting and polluting a planet that can only sustain a tenth of that number at best?
-
Agreed, in the case you have illustrated. What percentage of the British people live in similar circumstances? Quite a small percentage, I would reckon. Or put another way what population do you think could be sustained with horse powered agriculture?
Best estimate is not to use horses (which emit more CO2 than tractors!) but to move to renewable electricity and hydrogen storage. That will sustain about one tenth of the present population of these islands in the present level of comfort, indefinitely. Most of the rest of the world is doomed.
-
Where did the CO2 come from so suddenly, and go to so slowly, in previous cycles?
Who cares?
Do you recognise that today's situation is different from those?
-
Where did the CO2 come from so suddenly, and go to so slowly, in previous cycles?
That is a point Alan, you would expect that the earth would run out of surface carbon with the chemical reactions and sedimentation. I know there is carbon in volcanism but the amount is only very small.
-
Who cares?
I care.
Mao Tse-Tung said "It is well known that when you do anything, unless you understand its actual circumstances, its nature, and its relations to other things, you will not know the laws governing it, or how to do it, or be able to do it well". (Selected Works, Volume 1, p179, 1936)
I have a suspicion that the laws of physics haven't changed in the last 400,000 years, so it's important to know why it happened the last four times, and also why the present trend began long before humans exploited fossil fuel to any significant extent.
-
OK, long ago, volcanoes melted rocks.
Today, mankind smelts steel.
The first process has very little to do with the second one and no matter how much you study vulcanology, it tells you very little about ferrous metallurgy.
The events that caused the ends of ice ages may be nothing like the event that we are causing.
-
The challenges remain.
1. If CO2 drives climate change,
(a) where did it come from in the past
(b) where did it go to
(c) why did the [CO2] curve lag behind the temperature curve
(d) why are the historic cycles of [CO2] and T bounded so tightly
(e) why are the cycles so regularly periodic?
Hint: the answer to (a) is nothing to do with volcanoes - there's no consistent correlation with ash deposits.
Now on to the serious stuff:
2. Whatever the answers in 1 above, global climate change is already harming humans, so if you can't prevent the cause, or if it's too late to do so (given that the half life of atmospheric CO2 is at least 120 years) , what are you going to do about it?
3. If the cause is anything to do with fossil fuels, what do you propose to replace them without making things worse during that transition?
-
no matter how much you study vulcanology, it tells you very little about ferrous metallurgy.
Which raises an irrelevant but entertaining question for BC and any other chemists or geologists hovering around this forum! I have a suspicion that volcanic gases are mostly reducing rather than oxidising. So is lava more or less oxidised than the metals in the earth's crust and mantle?
-
is lava more or less oxidised than the metals in the earth's crust and mantle?
Less.
-
if you can't prevent the cause,
It seems likely that we can.
what are you going to do about it?
Nobody is saying that we shouldn't build sea walls and breed drought resistant crops or whatever.
But your approach seems to be that we are in a car speeding towards a wall and we can't steer. We should "adopt crash positions" + make sure the seat belts are fastened.
The rest of us are saying that's fine- but we should turn off the engine first.
The best way to make a bad situation better is to stop making it worse.
-
The engine will run out of fossil fuel anyway, which just adds to the problem.
Building sea walls is fine, as long as you realise that you emit around 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every cubic meter of concrete you construct.
Drought-resistant crops are always a good idea, as are flood-resistant crops, but sowing, fertilising, weeding and harvesting them without fossil fuels is going to require a major societal upheaval. Remember that horses emit more CO2 than tractors per tonne of crop yield. And then you have to process and distribute the stuff.
We should "adopt crash positions" + make sure the seat belts are fastened.
As you hurtle towards the ground it's always a good idea to lighten the load, unlock the doors, and tighten your harness, just in case the Hand of God doesn't intervene by suspending the laws of physics.
-
Hand of God doesn't intervene by suspending the laws of physics
Like ... by stopping CO2 absorbing IR.
-
Remember that horses emit more CO2 than tractors per tonne of crop yield.
So we need to run them on renewables.
OK, that's a work in progress.
https://www.biobased-diesel.com/post/built-4-business-pulling-tractor-runs-on-100-biodiesel
-
Building sea walls is fine, as long as you realise that you emit around 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every cubic meter of concrete you construct.
Ditto.
https://www.carboncure.com/concrete-corner/a-complete-guide-to-low-carbon-concrete/
-
So if your tractor eats biodiesel, what do you eat? I have a friend who makes bioethanol and methane from primary cellulosic waste (straw, vegetable leaves, slurry....) but the feedstock for biodiesel is the nutritious parts of plants, principally seeds containing long alkanes - it's better to sell that as food.
To maintain a UK lifestyle you need about 30 - 50 times as much "mechanical" energy as you consume from food. So if we were to move from fossil fuel to biofuel we would need to grow oil-rich crops enough to feed 30 - 50 times the present population. But we can scarcely grow enough to feed the people we have!
Low-carbon concrete apparently reduces the footprint of making the stuff by about 40%, but how much carbon do you have to invest in new plant to make it, and what is the final total by the time you have transported, mixed and placed it?
And the problem with building sea walls is one of perimeter to area ratio. Quite simply, it isn't worth protecting the small islands who turn up at COP conferences, when the carbon could be better spent protecting a large landmass like North America, China, Russia, India..... the very guys they are complaining about!
-
So if your tractor eats biodiesel, what do you eat?
Low-carbon concrete apparently reduces the footprint of making the stuff by about 40%, but how much carbon do you have to invest in new plant to make it, and what is the final total by the time you have transported, mixed and placed it?
And the problem with building sea walls is one of perimeter to area ratio. Quite simply, it isn't worth protecting the small islands who turn up at COP conferences, when the carbon could be better spent protecting a large landmass like North America, China, Russia, India..... the very guys they are complaining about!
At 40 percent who cares ? It isn't 95% reduction. Most reducing agents come as byproducts so it is OK to a point but when the byproducts run out what then ?
And did you ever hear of king Knut?
-
Global warming is caused by too much CO2 in the air. Long term effect will be polar ice melting and sea level rising.
So we need to reduce burning any fuels that produce the CO2 including wood, coal and biofuels. Hydro-electric is good but a very limited source of energy and wind and solar good but not reliable over 24 hour periods. Nuclear power stations are excellent but waste fuel needs to be closely guarded in safe deposits.
Most importantly we need to stop building new houses and infrastructure as this will reduce emissions of CO2 by 50% whereas electrifying transport only saves about 1%.
Anyway oil and gas reserves need protecting for our grand children so should not be used to produce electric power and heat longterm
-
Nuclear power is no longer economic, and becoming less so all the time. Problem is that the fossil energy required to build and maintain a nuclear power station was such, in the 1960s, that you only got a net energy payback after 5 years of operation. I suspect this period has now increased thanks to increased safety and security requirements (more concrete and steel!) and the construction lead time has also increased. As a result the required guaranteed price of nuclear electricity far exceeds that of any other source. Consequently there is little commercial appetite for nuclear construction and any government initiative is liable to political criticism and further waste of money on "consultancy", to be recouped from the selling price of electricity.
Apart from the manufacture of plastics (once the saviour of civilisation , now the Spawn of Satan), paint (another form of plastic,but now principally water-based) and shampoo, it is difficult to imagine what uses other than energy generation our grandchildren might find for oil and gas, so if you don't want them to burn the stuff, you might as well use it now.
Today is yet another day of low temperatures and no wind, and during the winter the British Isles also suffers long periods of little (daytime) and no (night time) sunshine, so whilst wind and solar are very attractive sources of energy, they are impractical without a really significant (5 or 10 day) buffer store. Which we don't have, even in draft form.
-
Solar will still not not work in this country even with storage for a number of reasons.
1) We have poor irradience, some places have 5 times (ish)our level
2)What irradience we do have is concentrated in a 6 to 12 hour window
3) 75 percent (ish) of the solar production happens in a 4 month(ish) window
4) Even wher the sun shines solar production is sporadic, we have long periods without direct sunshine.
5)direct sunshine is when the majority of energy is generated
Now if we discount the 8 months where solar production is poor this means that
1)we have to store energy for long periods
2)the solar installed capacity will have to be many many times our standard usage to cover the periods where there is no generation
3)this installed capacity will only generate at full capacity for 8(ish) hours a day so will need to be multiplied THREE more times
4)the installed capacity will reach the level that it generates enough energy in indirect sunlight (10% of potential) to sustain the country thus meaning any extra power will have to be wasted or stored. That is to say 350 gw capacity. Or at 200w per square metre 2000sqkm of panels at current uk electricity usage, separate from most home heating, transport or imported products.
5)storage capacity will need to be at 350gw so costs will be astronomical due to the over subscription, 350 gwh is half a day of uk usage.
6)if we do indeed store this energy for the winter this will mean 8 month storage capacity, whilst not being impossible is certainly more that a 15 day lull.
I seem to remember jokes in Britian starting with "a solar powered.........", I'm sure solar powered Britian would have been laughed at years ago, wind on the other hand you would have gained agreement.
-
350 gwh is half a day of uk usage.
...of electricity. We also use about the same amount of direct gas and oil heating, and as much again in the form of road diesel and gasoline, so in order to fully electrify the UK's energy supply for the foreseeable future we need to generate and distribute at least 3 times as much electricity as at present, in a fully sustainable (i.e. with adequate storage for intermittent sources) manner.
Or reduce our consumption to 10 - 20% of present demand.
-
Alan, using huge quantities of concrete and steel for environmental protection is wasteful and unnecessary if we sink the reactors under sea water. Luckily, most of our UK existing nuclear plants are on the coast and ideally placed to use scaled up mini nuclear submarine technology.
Not sure of extent of Uranium deposits worldwide but Wiki seems to think Australia has plenty.
However, to reducing CO2 emissions quickly really requires responsible family planning thus reducing the need for 50% used on new buildings etc. and in the long term all fuel consumption.
-
The security of a nuclear submarine depends on its being in motion, in an undisclosed location, and manned by sailors and marines armed to the teeth. Somewhat difficult to connect to the National Grid.
-
but the feedstock for biodiesel is the nutritious parts of plants, principally seeds containing long alkanes - it's better to sell that as food.
The easy feedstock for biodiesel is seed oils.
But there's this thing called chemistry. It lets you turn stuff into other stuff.
I have a friend who makes bioethanol and methane from primary cellulosic waste (straw, vegetable leaves, slurry....)
Well done to him (And his army of microscopic chemists).
Other fermentations are available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone%E2%80%93butanol%E2%80%93ethanol_fermentation
-
using huge quantities of concrete and steel for environmental protection is wasteful and unnecessary if we sink the reactors under sea water.
Do you really not recognise that the sea is part of the environment?
-
Today is yet another day of low temperatures and no wind, and during the winter the British Isles
And while you are the one advocating sealing off the UK to block immigration, the rest of us understand that the sun is always shining somewhere. We, and France currently buy and sell electricity as required.
-
We, and France currently buy and sell electricity as required.
With a capacity of 1000-megawatts, the high voltage direct current (HVDC) power cable can provide enough energy to power 1 million British homes and is expected to meet 1.2% of Britain?s electricity demand.
from nationalgrid.com.
Remarkable. That presumes that each home does not attempt to cook (up to 15 kW) , boil a kettle (2.5 kW), and switch on the lights (say 200W) at the same time as watching TV (300W), using a heat pump (2 kW) , operating a refrigerator (400W) or charging an electric car (at least 3 kW if you want to visit the supermarket before you starve to death).
Even the French electricity supply is limited and their occasional surplus comes from legacy nuclear plant, so when the civilised world becomes fossil-free (i.e.with electricity demand 3 - 4 times present levels) , the commodity price will rise to unaffordability.
-
We need to reduce burning the fuels that produce that CO2, oil, gas, wood, coal and even biofuels. Hydro-electric is good but a very limited source of energy and wind and solar good but not reliable over 24 hour periods. Nuclear power stations are excellent but waste fuel needs to be closely guarded in safe deposits.
Global warming is caused by too much CO2 in the air. Nature does have some naturally caused bush fires and volcanoes that do erupt and these may cause a rise in CO2 every 100,000 years or so but the current problem is caused by human beings burning huge quantities of hydrocarbon fuels.
Most importantly we need to reduce family sizes to avoid having to build new houses and infrastructure as this will reduce emissions of CO2 immediately by 50%, whereas fiddling around with electrifying transport only saves about 1%.
-
The long-term effects of global warming and over population are already being felt here.
Looking at the worldometer stats per country, we can see evidence that countries that have a fertility rate of less than 2 children per family, result in the children inheriting their parents? house thus only maintenance of existing houses and infra-structure is required in these desirable countries like Sweden or Canada, with high standards of living but saving 50% of CO2 emissions used on new housing that poorer countries with 3 or 4 kids are suffering from.
Countries with 4 children per family are causing a huge housing crisis for their extra kids who will have to live in shanty towns and poverty-stricken slums. In worst cases, they will be forced to live in refugee camps with no hope for a normal future unless they can escape into a wealthy country sometimes in rickety boats or overcrowded refugee rubber dinghies.
The huge refugee camps which UNHCR is supporting, in worst cases, will turn into refugee cities which are not self-sustainable, because free food has bankrupted their farmers. Typical examples are Cox?s Bazaar and particularly Gaza.
The UN has a charter "to maintain international peace and security, uphold international law, achieve "higher standards of living" for their citizens," But by only supplying free medical and food aid to refugee camps and not family planning assistance, this makes matters worse like we see in Gaza at present.
Neither of the latter-day prophets, Jesus or Muhammad, advocated large families; by divine inspiration they realised that over-population could lead to a future crisis.
Before the present conflict, UN was feeding the problem in Gaza which can now only be solved by all Hamas leaders, their families and their supporters? families leaving Gaza immediately. The UN should be paying for these thousands of families to be transported into exile in Western Sahara with its similar climate or to any other country of their choice, that does not border Israel; and in my view the sooner the better.
CliveS
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
-
Not entirely true, alas.
Inheritance taxes generally require children to sell the parental home, and even if they don't, it is increasingly rare in civilised countries and fascist dictatorships like the USA, to inherit before you retire, by which time you probably have adult children too.
Gaza could be turned into a reasonable place to live within a few years if Hamas returned all the hostages and disbanded. For as long as parasitic scum hide under civilian buildings and maintain political power by trying to destroy Israel, their citizens will suffer.
-
Yes population control is needed, but not because of co2.
20 percent of the global population (1.6billion) use 80 percent of the resources produced.
24 of July is the annual date (7/12ths or 58%) that resources are used that earth can replaced, the rest of the year is the excess use of resources.
Earth population expected to rise to 13 billion from 8 billion.
So earth can sustain 1.15 billion people in recourses in a standard of western living, given the 13 billion want a western standard of living we will use recourses at twelve times the rate the earth can sustain.
-
Alan,
They do not need to wait for parents to die but can buy an empty house with a mortgage. But we do not need to build new houses so save all that fuel needed for construction.
The UN needs to find a solution to Gaza. They are a world sponsored organisation with billions in their budgets which could be used to build a new Palestine in the Western Sahara.
The government there can surely be persuaded by huge UN funding to house the 300,000 odd Hamas immigrant families by building a new city for them.
UN must do something to stop the war in Gaza immediately; free food instead of free contraception in was the mistake we all made.
-
UN must do something to stop the war in Gaza immediately;
Only Hamas can stop the war. Release the hostages and abandon its genocidal policy. Too many anti-Israel governments are represented in the UN for it to be able to prevent a recurrence.
"Palestine" is a myth - there never was a unified nation in the area from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire until the creation of Israel. In the interim, the area was controlled by Britain, with a population of about 700,000, many of whom did not recognise any territorial boundaries, ownership of land, or government.
-
"Palestine" is a myth
By that means so is the bible.
-
The word refers to a region, not a nation. The Old Testament mentions umpteen different tribes, mostly at war with each other, and the New Testament is about happenings in an administrative region of the Roman empire, again peopled by various tribes. The only unifying force among the natives under Roman rule was Judaism, not Islam, which hadn't been invented. Subsequent rule was from Turkey until the British mandate.
It would of course make sense to establish a purely secular selfgoverning state in the area, but there are too many religious and political parasites in the Middle East to allow such a thing to happen.
-
Well, the old testament is always mentioning the conflict between the Philistines of Gaza and the Israelites so squabbling between them is expected.
But now due to free medical interference, Gaza has grown from a few tens of thousand of families into a huge city which is unable to self sustain itself and its political leaders Hamas have grandiose dreams of a separate Palestinian state.
But that new state would not be able to feed or maintain itself without outside aid from outside donors, so it needs to be moved into a larger area with a similar environment
The world cannot tolerate seeing starving children in refugee camps inside Gaza so UN or Arabian States need to resit the 8 refugee camp starting with the most northern camps in Gaza; to camps in non neighbouring countries and I have suggested western Sahara as a suitable place.
Would Israel support/allow them to move out knowing that some are murders; I wonder?
-
There will always be someone living outside the borders of Israel, and for as long as there is religion, there will always be some kind of filth that can rise to power by blaming the Jews for everything and vowing to destroy Israel.
-
The word refers to a region, not a nation. The Old Testament mentions umpteen different tribes, mostly at war with each other, and the New Testament is about happenings in an administrative region of the Roman empire, again peopled by various tribes. The only unifying force among the natives under Roman rule was Judaism, not Islam, which hadn't been invented. Subsequent rule was from Turkey until the British mandate.
It would of course make sense to establish a purely secular selfgoverning state in the area, but there are too many religious and political parasites in the Middle East to allow such a thing to happen.
The theory was make a mixed bag and every one will get along, the practice however is one variety gains power and consolidates power with brutal violence. Sunni Shia Alouwite kurd etc. The UN should have taken a cheese wire to the ottoman empire and cut it up into a thousand pieces.
-
The declared object was to create a Jewish homeland, which in my view was exactly what we didn't need.
It assuaged the general European guilt of centuries of antisemitism whilst simultaneously offering a humane route for Jews to leave the countries in which we had historically been treated as the Enemy Within, and are still regarded with suspicion. In other words, replacing antisemitic sentiment with antisemitic action, and making the entirely spurious "Jewish Problem" of the Christian world into an actual problem for the Muslim world.
Much like the Partition of India. The moment you reassign territory, not on the basis of occupancy, purchase or inheritance but on an entirely illogical characteristic like color or religion, you create lasting opportunities for political and religious parasites to profit at the expense of everyone else.