Topic: Global Warming

[kingfish out of water]

But typical.

Thanks for the compliment. I am usually scientifcally correct on this subject!

You scientists and your crazy spelling!

[Hts121]

^Overpopulation is talked about very little and it kind of surprises me.  The easiest way to cap or reduce CO2 emissions is to cap or reduce the global population.  You'd think you'd hear more about this from the climate science community.  Maybe it's not talked about because it just isn't practical.  I guess you can't really mandate that people don't have children or only have a certain number of children.  That wouldn't work in a democracy and it didn't work very well in China either.

Right.  Overpopulation leads to more industry and more emissions.  No doubt.  However, industry can be regulated and the means of operation can adapt to new regulations.  Family.... not so much.  I would much rather have the government invade my office, than my household.

[AmrapinVA]

But typical.

Thanks for the compliment. I am usually scientifcally correct on this subject!

You scientists and your crazy spelling!

Right, sorry, I didn't realize you need 100% correct spelling on a message board to get a degree in Science! Did you learn that on the Discovery Channel? I type fast, I spell wrong, deal with it.

BTW, thanks for keeping it out of the personal arena again!

[AmrapinVA]

^Overpopulation is talked about very little and it kind of surprises me.  The easiest way to cap or reduce CO2 emissions is to cap or reduce the global population.  You'd think you'd hear more about this from the climate science community.  Maybe it's not talked about because it just isn't practical.  I guess you can't really mandate that people don't have children or only have a certain number of children.  That wouldn't work in a democracy and it didn't work very well in China either.

Right.  Overpopulation leads to more industry and more emissions.  No doubt.  However, industry can be regulated and the means of operation can adapt to new regulations.  Family.... not so much.  I would much rather have the government invade my office, than my household.

Most of the current overpopulation issues are in Africa which produce the least amount of emissions. So, no, overpopulation dosen't always lead to more industry and more emissions.

[Hootenany]

^Overpopulation is a relative term.  Parts of Africa are considered overpopulated because they don't have enough clean water and/or food to support the local population.  In the industrialized world I would assume there is a very strong connection between population trends and emissions trends.

I would much rather have the government invade my office, than my household.

I would prefer neither, but keeping the government out of my personal life is more important than keeping them out of my professional life.  No doubt about that.

[kingfish out of water]

But typical.

Thanks for the compliment. I am usually scientifcally correct on this subject!

You scientists and your crazy spelling!

Right, sorry, I didn't realize you need 100% correct spelling on a message board to get a degree in Science! Did you learn that on the Discovery Channel? I type fast, I spell wrong, deal with it.

BTW, thanks for keeping it out of the personal arena again!

You're welcome.

[Hts121]

^Overpopulation is talked about very little and it kind of surprises me.  The easiest way to cap or reduce CO2 emissions is to cap or reduce the global population.  You'd think you'd hear more about this from the climate science community.  Maybe it's not talked about because it just isn't practical.  I guess you can't really mandate that people don't have children or only have a certain number of children.  That wouldn't work in a democracy and it didn't work very well in China either.

Right.  Overpopulation leads to more industry and more emissions.  No doubt.  However, industry can be regulated and the means of operation can adapt to new regulations.  Family.... not so much.  I would much rather have the government invade my office, than my household.

Most of the current overpopulation issues are in Africa which produce the least amount of emissions. So, no, overpopulation dosen't always lead to more industry and more emissions.

Sure it does.  More people in any given family equals more cars, more groceries, more hot showers, more loads of laundry, etc., etc.  The same applies in Africa, even if on a much smaller scale due to financial restraints.  Africa might not have much industry, but it would have A LOT less if it had the population density of Canada.

[AmrapinVA]

^Overpopulation is a relative term.  Parts of Africa are considered overpopulated because they don't have enough clean water and/or food to support the local population.  In the industrialized world I would assume there is a very strong connection between population trends and emissions trends.

I would much rather have the government invade my office, than my household.

I would prefer neither, but keeping the government out of my personal life is more important than keeping them out of my professional life.  No doubt about that.

Actually, population growth in a country usually has an inverse proportion to its emissions increase. For the most part, industrialization slows down population growth. China is the latest example.

[KJP]

If there wasn't any CO2 on this planet, life wouldn't exist. Why not just ban carbon and oxygen and eliminate the "middle man"? We can put a "cap and trade" program on the Sun.

Here's a suggestion: why not lock yourself in a room with high levels of CO2 for 24 hours. If after that 24 hours you're no longer alive, then you can admit you were wrong and realize that too much of any good thing is a bad thing. Of course, if you're no longer alive, there's not much realization going on.....

And that's the biggest risk of all in waiting to see if humans really are causing global warming.

[Hootenany]

Actually, population growth in a country usually has an inverse proportion to its emissions increase. For the most part, industrialization slows down population growth. China is the latest example.

Huh?  So you are saying that as the rate of CO2 emissions goes up the rate of population growth goes down?  That may be the case, but it doesn't really prove anything.  That just has more to do with the rate of industrialization having a larger impact on CO2 emissions than population growth as a singularity.  Bottom line is that more people = more emissions in every part of the World.

[Boreas]

NOVA: World in the Balance
Here is a presentation of population programs in several countries with high rates of growth
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/campaigns.html

A key issue that Indian public information campaigns have widely targeted is favoritism for boy children, a deeply ingrained tradition that drives couples to have more children.

[Civvik]

^Overpopulation is talked about very little and it kind of surprises me.  The easiest way to cap or reduce CO2 emissions is to cap or reduce the global population.  You'd think you'd hear more about this from the climate science community.  Maybe it's not talked about because it just isn't practical.  I guess you can't really mandate that people don't have children or only have a certain number of children.  That wouldn't work in a democracy and it didn't work very well in China either.

This worked fantastically well in China and is credited in large part with the stability of their economic reforms.

[AmrapinVA]

If there wasn't any CO2 on this planet, life wouldn't exist. Why not just ban carbon and oxygen and eliminate the "middle man"? We can put a "cap and trade" program on the Sun.

Here's a suggestion: why not lock yourself in a room with high levels of CO2 for 24 hours. If after that 24 hours you're no longer alive, then you can admit you were wrong and realize that too much of any good thing is a bad thing. Of course, if you're no longer alive, there's not much realization going on.....

And that's the biggest risk of all in waiting to see if humans really are causing global warming.

You could burn the world's oil deposits to ground, level every forest, melt all the permafrost...and you wouldn't even come remotely close to having 1% of CO2 in our atmosphere...let alone 100%. Two billion years ago, the Earth's atmospheric content was almost 20% CO2 when life was in its infancy. That era, where life transfered huge quantities of CO2 to oxygen, set up the stage for life as we know it.

CO2 is far from evil and while man can reproduce it, it is not really "man made". It's a molecule that's one part carbon, two parts oxygen. That's all it is. Without it, this planet would be as lifeless as Mars.

Yet we are now on mission to destroy this molecule like it's decaying Plutomium sitting on a kitchen table.

Strange world.

[Hts121]

^Overpopulation is talked about very little and it kind of surprises me.  The easiest way to cap or reduce CO2 emissions is to cap or reduce the global population.  You'd think you'd hear more about this from the climate science community.  Maybe it's not talked about because it just isn't practical.  I guess you can't really mandate that people don't have children or only have a certain number of children.  That wouldn't work in a democracy and it didn't work very well in China either.

This worked fantastically well in China and is credited in large part with the stability of their economic reforms.

It sure was "fantastic" when Chinese couples would bag up their female offspring and throw the newborn in a river so the government would approve of having a boy instead.

[AmrapinVA]

Actually, population growth in a country usually has an inverse proportion to its emissions increase. For the most part, industrialization slows down population growth. China is the latest example.

Huh?  So you are saying that as the rate of CO2 emissions goes up the rate of population growth goes down?  That may be the case, but it doesn't really prove anything.  That just has more to do with the rate of industrialization having a larger impact on CO2 emissions than population growth as a singularity.  Bottom line is that more people = more emissions in every part of the World.

Sure, I bet Italy's CO2 emission growth has climbed even though it's population has shrunk. I bet Japan's will too. Until we find an alternate source of energy for First and Developing World countries, this is how it is. Energy creation/usage is what sparks technological growth. This is nothing new.

[Hootenany]

Actually, population growth in a country usually has an inverse proportion to its emissions increase. For the most part, industrialization slows down population growth. China is the latest example.

Huh?  So you are saying that as the rate of CO2 emissions goes up the rate of population growth goes down?  That may be the case, but it doesn't really prove anything.  That just has more to do with the rate of industrialization having a larger impact on CO2 emissions than population growth as a singularity.  Bottom line is that more people = more emissions in every part of the World.

Sure, I bet Italy's CO2 emission growth has climbed even though it's population has shrunk. I bet Japan's will too. Until we find an alternate source of energy for First and Developing World countries, this is how it is. Energy creation/usage is what sparks technological growth. This is nothing new.

We're talking about two different things.

[X]

Yet we are now on mission to destroy this molecule like it's decaying Plutomium sitting on a kitchen table.

That's about as ridiculous a summary of the issue as I've heard.

[Civvik]

^Overpopulation is talked about very little and it kind of surprises me.  The easiest way to cap or reduce CO2 emissions is to cap or reduce the global population.  You'd think you'd hear more about this from the climate science community.  Maybe it's not talked about because it just isn't practical.  I guess you can't really mandate that people don't have children or only have a certain number of children.  That wouldn't work in a democracy and it didn't work very well in China either.

This worked fantastically well in China and is credited in large part with the stability of their economic reforms.

It sure was "fantastic" when Chinese couples would bag up their female offspring and throw the newborn in a river so the government would approve of having a boy instead.

The ethical fallout of their policy is irrelevant when the conversation is about population versus resources.

[AmrapinVA]

Actually, population growth in a country usually has an inverse proportion to its emissions increase. For the most part, industrialization slows down population growth. China is the latest example.

Huh?  So you are saying that as the rate of CO2 emissions goes up the rate of population growth goes down?  That may be the case, but it doesn't really prove anything.  That just has more to do with the rate of industrialization having a larger impact on CO2 emissions than population growth as a singularity.  Bottom line is that more people = more emissions in every part of the World.

Sure, I bet Italy's CO2 emission growth has climbed even though it's population has shrunk. I bet Japan's will too. Until we find an alternate source of energy for First and Developing World countries, this is how it is. Energy creation/usage is what sparks technological growth. This is nothing new.

We're talking about two different things.

I understand that, but you can't make a blanket statement like "overall population growth creates emissions" without admitting that in reality population growth and emissions creation, in many cases, have an inverse relationship due to the effect of industrialization.

[AmrapinVA]

Really, that ridiculous, X? I would think, again from a scientific standpoint, arguing that we are all going to choke on CO2 is pretty far fetched, to put it kindly. Currently the CO2 content is a whopping .00038% of our atmosphere. I'm 99.9% sure life will be able to breathe over the next millenia and beyond.

As for that statement, maybe "destroy" is too harsh a term. Let's say "attack" CO2. Again, the EPA will regulate it, just like it regulates any other hazardous chemical in the enviroment. Is it hazardous? It would be nice if there was some experimental evidence to prove it, but there isn't. Do we know how much is "safe"? There are guesses (like 350 parts per million in the tropo), but nobody knows, because there are no hard facts involving this type of science. Which take me back to my original point: the overall idea that CO2 is a "hazardous" molecule is just plain silly without something concrete to base it on.

[X]

Who's arguing that we're going to choke on CO2 in the atmosphere?  Are you that confused about the topic at hand?

[AmrapinVA]

Who's arguing that we're going to choke on CO2 in the atmosphere?  Are you that confused about the topic at hand?

Did you read Ken's post? Not going personal, just stating who posted that idea.

[Hootenany]

^Name for me one country with population growth and total emissions decrease over the last 10 years.  I don't see how this relationship is inverse.  Just because Italy and Japan are shrinking in population and have increasing emissions does not make the relationship inverse!  If that were the case then when Italy and Japan have population increases you would see a decrease in total emissions... which is not what would occur.

Industrialization will obviously cause an increase in emissions per capita.  An increase in population will always create an increase in total emissions so long as there's no World War or massive depression. 

[AmrapinVA]

^Name for me one country with population growth and total emissions decrease over the last 10 years.  I don't see how this relationship is inverse.  Just because Italy and Japan are shrinking in population and have increasing emissions does not make the relationship inverse!  If that were the case then when Italy and Japan have population increases you would see a decrease in total emissions... which is not what would occur.

Industrialization will obviously cause an increase in emissions per capita.  An increase in population will always create an increase in total emissions so long as there's no World War or massive depression. 

Positive - positive results can be "inverse". If the emissions rate of growth is slower that the population growth. That was my point with China. China never had a decline of emissions, but when it was exploding with people under the Cultural Revolution, its emission growth was minimal. This is going way off topic, lets just agree to disagree.

[X]

Who's arguing that we're going to choke on CO2 in the atmosphere?  Are you that confused about the topic at hand?

Did you read Ken's post? Not going personal, just stating who posted that idea.

Ahh, now I get it.  Smart@ss post leads to smart@ss post and now the argument is that global warming is about us choking on an increase in atmospheric CO2.

[Hootenany]

Right on cue China and Canada have come out with statements about the importance of population control in global warming legislation.

Population control called key to deal
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

"Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth," so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.



The real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438#ixzz0ZO8Mi83l

The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

[Sherman Cahal]

re: The real inconvenient truth

That writer is bat-sh!t-crazy. If she is advocating for the government to come in, dictate how many babies I should have, and forcibly take away any extras, then she'll meet some _real_ resistance to that.

I guess she (as a Canadian) doesn't realize the underground trade of babies that exist in China because of their "one child" policy -- that favors males over females -- or the donation of Chinese children to other countries for profit because of said policy.

Why start with developed countries, where the birth rate is at least sustainable? Why not start (if this is implemented, if ever) with the developing countries? Condoms can go a long way, but the Holy Father doesn't like that. Most developed countries, if it wasn't for immigration, would be losing population.

[AmrapinVA]

Who's arguing that we're going to choke on CO2 in the atmosphere?  Are you that confused about the topic at hand?

Did you read Ken's post? Not going personal, just stating who posted that idea.

Ahh, now I get it.  Smart@ss post leads to smart@ss post and now the argument is that global warming is about us choking on an increase in atmospheric CO2.

I'll agree...I was being a sm@rtass because it's a surreal idea that the EPA throwing around. That doesn't mean what I've stated in subsequent posts is untruth in regards to this subject.

[jam40jeff]

^Name for me one country with population growth and total emissions decrease over the last 10 years.  I don't see how this relationship is inverse.  Just because Italy and Japan are shrinking in population and have increasing emissions does not make the relationship inverse!  If that were the case then when Italy and Japan have population increases you would see a decrease in total emissions... which is not what would occur.

Industrialization will obviously cause an increase in emissions per capita.  An increase in population will always create an increase in total emissions so long as there's no World War or massive depression. 

Positive - positive results can be "inverse". If the emissions rate of growth is slower that the population growth. That was my point with China. China never had a decline of emissions, but when it was exploding with people under the Cultural Revolution, its emission growth was minimal. This is going way off topic, lets just agree to disagree.

If you are talking about total emissions as related to total population, then that is surely not an inverse relationship.  If you are talking about the average emissions per person, then yes it would be inverse.  But I think we're talking about the total emissions (or average emissions per Planet Earth), not average emissions per person.  Doubling our emissions while quadrupling our population is not going to halve the problem.

[AmrapinVA]

^Name for me one country with population growth and total emissions decrease over the last 10 years.  I don't see how this relationship is inverse.  Just because Italy and Japan are shrinking in population and have increasing emissions does not make the relationship inverse!  If that were the case then when Italy and Japan have population increases you would see a decrease in total emissions... which is not what would occur.

Industrialization will obviously cause an increase in emissions per capita.  An increase in population will always create an increase in total emissions so long as there's no World War or massive depression. 

Positive - positive results can be "inverse". If the emissions rate of growth is slower that the population growth. That was my point with China. China never had a decline of emissions, but when it was exploding with people under the Cultural Revolution, its emission growth was minimal. This is going way off topic, lets just agree to disagree.

If you are talking about total emissions as related to total population, then that is surely not an inverse relationship.  If you are talking about the average emissions per person, then yes it would be inverse.  But I think we're talking about the total emissions (or average emissions per Planet Earth), not average emissions per person.  Doubling our emissions while quadrupling our population is not going to halve the problem.

Let's agree to disagree.

[jam40jeff]

^Name for me one country with population growth and total emissions decrease over the last 10 years.  I don't see how this relationship is inverse.  Just because Italy and Japan are shrinking in population and have increasing emissions does not make the relationship inverse!  If that were the case then when Italy and Japan have population increases you would see a decrease in total emissions... which is not what would occur.

Industrialization will obviously cause an increase in emissions per capita.  An increase in population will always create an increase in total emissions so long as there's no World War or massive depression. 

Positive - positive results can be "inverse". If the emissions rate of growth is slower that the population growth. That was my point with China. China never had a decline of emissions, but when it was exploding with people under the Cultural Revolution, its emission growth was minimal. This is going way off topic, lets just agree to disagree.

If you are talking about total emissions as related to total population, then that is surely not an inverse relationship.  If you are talking about the average emissions per person, then yes it would be inverse.  But I think we're talking about the total emissions (or average emissions per Planet Earth), not average emissions per person.  Doubling our emissions while quadrupling our population is not going to halve the problem.

Let's agree to disagree.

About mathematics or that you're only interested in average emissions per person?

The definition of "inverse relationship" is not subjective.

[tedolph]

"Why can't American Republicans be "responsible" like their brethren on the other side of the ocean?" 


This is crazy ca ca. 

i)  I have been a certified diver for more than a few years.  I know something about breathing gasses.  CO is toxic and will kill you.  CO2 is not toxic; it is a colorless, odorless gas.  It is also highly nonreactive.  You can breath as much of it as you want as long as you have enough O2 to remain conscious.  CO2 buildup will induce the desire to breath (gasp reflex) although with training this can be suppressed, also exhaling CO2 from the lungs will suppress the gasp reflex although obviously this will decrease your buoyancy- an issue for skin divers.  It is even possible to suppress the CO2 gasp reflex through other techniques (e.g. hyperventilating) to result in shallow water black out due to lack of oxygen, not excess or "toxic" CO2 buildup.  CO2 is not a pollutant because it is not toxic.  This is like saying one of the Noble gases is a polutant-crazy.  If there is a chemist in the house please help me out. 

ii)  Although CO2 is a so called green house gas its effect is orders of magnitude below other more important green house gasses such as methane and even water vapor.  The planetary scientists figured this out in the 1970's by studying the atmospheres of Mars and Venus (opposite "Global Warming" extremes)as a result of the Viking and Vera landers (an a Russian one I believe) which actually sampled these planetary atmospheres.  Simply put, planetary data and Earth core samples show that methane and water vapor are the principle gases involved in terrestrial climate change.  Not CO2. 

This is getting crazy.  Please remember it is the apocalyptic Global Warming theorists that have the burden of proof here, not the status quo people. 

P.S. I am neither a registered Republican nor Democrat so I don't have political horse in this race.   We will now return to our regular scheduled programming.

[Boreas]

Per (ii): True, methane is a "more potent" greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but we have launched a mine-load of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide has increased from .28% to .38% due to human causes and that certainly has caused an increase in temperature of the atmosphere.

[Hootenany]

^How much of that CO2 increase of .10% can be directly linked to human activities?  Of course, many of us know that CO2 has historically lagged temperature change by several hundred years.  The theory is that as some natural occurrence heats up the ocean more CO2 is released.  The ability of the ocean to act as a CO2 sink is directly proportional to its mean temperature.  With this being the case I would suspect that at least some of this increase in CO2 is due to the natural warming period that began several hundred years ago.  The fact that CO2 concentration lags temperature trends raises a lot of questions in my mind and makes me think that CO2 has a smaller impact on global temperature than we are led to believe.  I mean, you look at the graphs and the temperature is going up and up and the CO2 levels are going up and up and then, all of a sudden, temperatures begin to fall and subsequently CO2 begins to fall.  If CO2 is DRIVING climate change then why the reversal out of nowhere?  If it's a positive feedback system like Al Gore wants us to believe then why doesn't the Earth continual heat up?  More CO2 should bring higher temperatures which should release more CO2 from the ocean which should increase temperature which should release more CO2 from the ocean which should... you get the point.  But that doesn't happen... why?

I'm in no way denying that humans have put large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, but I am questioning the importance of it all.  As tedolph noted earlier there are much more harmful greenhouse gases out there, but it seems that CO2 is under attack because it is the only one that we can control. 

[eastvillagedon]

^it's the cows. get rid of the cows!