EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:38 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:44 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
You should study up on what it takes to be a commercial pilot flying passengers in instrument flight conditions. There is a lot of precise figuring about your future. Precision, common sense, thinking ahead of the aircraft and conditions at all times, keeping up a 4 second scan of a myriad instrument readings. And you don't think I can do population science?

JE, you keep topping yourself. First you want to blow Yellowstone and then you compare timing an airplane flight to timing a population collapse. That's got to set a record for apples and oranges comparisons. :mrgreen: I'm sure our mentor Al Bartlett would agree.

Quote:
More trees, less people, no pollution, no greed and other puffy colorful flowers of fantasy.

Now now, let's get it right and not go off on another of your semantic train wrecks. Once again, my candidate for best bumper sticker:

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE!

TOOLS FOR NEED, NOT GREED!

It's general by design since if we can't get by this then more specific directions are pointless. If you have anything better, by all means share it. Your last contribution lacked the right touch.

Quote:
maybe, the cascading tipping points.

No cascading tipping points generated by man that I can see in the near future but I am open to solid scientific models that might demonstrate such a model. A steady increase in droughts, downpours, rising oceans, water acidification and general pollution seem to be the main problems for the time being.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:53 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
herlbert wrote:
It is possible to plant more trees. However, how could be population be lessen if birth rate is higher than in mortality in some countries.


It can't. We need to turn that around. To be sincere about solving things however involves the richer countries with lower population growth lowering their carbon and general pollution levels severely. It would be good, for instance, to have work access by walking or bicycling or at least by public transport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:06 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2591
Location: Central Colorado
I thought I demonstrated that everyone in the world at this point has to plant 1388 trees this year, to be even with emissions. It would have to be even more to lower the CO2 level. If emissions went down evenly with population, especially of high emitting countries, then we would still have to plant those 4 trees a day. Another thing demonstrated is that there just is not enough livable room for all those trees.
We can sequester CO2, as much as affordable, through a variety of means, but the key is afford.
Another thing with mitigating HGHGs is that the necessary much lower population. Lowering population by voluntary one child or less families is a logistical and educational nightmare, and certainly not acceptable to at least half the people. Besides, the math is that that is too late and not enough to lower population significantly in the time available to stop thermageddon.
A nuclear war is possible, but could easily long term poison the surface, precluding extinction of many life forms from radiation. One danger is not enough effect, and the other is too much effect. When and if it happened, how much of a nuclear winter? Would it be long enough to account for momentum of heating effect?
Population could also be lowered by geologic disasters that are due, again, if in time to account for momentum.
How about if everyone went green and lowered their footprints to 1/20th? We did it, and solar is increasing rapidly,
but again, not enough and people seem to not be going all green with recycling and lowered births, either.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/20 ... ming-video
From the runaway and fourth tipping point threads, if we are indeed already in an unstoppable runaway global warming from the Arctic being over the temperature of geologic past thermal maximum events, and open ocean warming can not be stopped before tundra methane self-release, then it is already too late to even mitigate what we started with fossil fuel use, overpopulation, and general inability to see the consequences of our actions in, say, seven generations.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environm ... ts-n257006
I guess if we die trying to promote real green, maybe we will be treated kindly by our maker. I believe it is possible for Divine Interference. :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:53 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
Once again I don't buy the out of control runaway scenario. As to the number of trees I need to plant as my contribution, I don't know where that was pulled from. I do know we need more trees and if we continue on course it will probably mean extinction but I don't know where to set that point and apparently no one else does either.

My guess is some sort of cataclysm will happen before we achieve the Stephen Hawkings solution of space colonization. If somebody is left to crawl out of the rubble I hope they will bring some kind of message to the future, Something along the lines of lots of trees and a limited population and maybe an appreciation of the principle of local sustainability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:24 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2591
Location: Central Colorado
I agree, Dingo.
It sure would be nice if we didn't mess it all up.
Mitigation is making it not as bad, and it seems we have accomplished very little toward a very large goal.
So, it is going to get bad, probably quicker than thought. Peace. :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:55 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2591
Location: Central Colorado
Well, some people have hopium;

"The good news about climate change is only zero carbon

The Burning Age Is Over
​Julie Johnston sustainability adult education consultant BC Canada

​CO2 is the top cause of global warming and the only cause of ​ocean acidification.

Carbon Majors
Nov 2013 study ​traces 2/3 of industrial CO2 emissions
​to 90 institutions​



Climate Action Network Int. 2014 Position Statement: zero carbon by 2050

'These [mitigation] pathways would require substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades and near zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century'. (IPCC 2014 AR5 Headline Statements)

'Without mitigation policies, fossil fuel and industrial emissions could reach 55-70 GtCO2 by 2050 and around 90 GtCO2 by 2100. This is in stark contrast with a low carbon future, where the energy system needs to be virtually zero carbon by 2100' (PwC Briefing: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change April 2014)

A project of the
​ Climate Emergency Institute.
Bill Gates ​TED Talk
Innovating to
​ Zero Carbon
It is scientifically impossible for today's catastrophic atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (400 ppm) to fall ​unless our industrial carbon emissions stop, and we must get below 350 ppm to prevent planetary catastrophe.
"We should be talking about emissions targets, and the right emission target is zero."
(Ken Caldeira climate expert Stanford​)
"I asked the top scientists on this several times: Do we really have to get down to near zero? Can't we just cut it in half or a quarter? And the answer is that until we get near to zero, the temperature will continue to rise." (Bill Gates)"
http://www.onlyzerocarbon.org/

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group