CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F h

[waldo]

so now you're reverting to Shaviv's own blog! Ya, ya... RC is always the standard denier go-to... always keepin the poor 'denier man down'!

for the record, Rhamstorf et al (2004) comprises:

- STEFAN RAHMSTORF, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany;

- DAVID ARCHER, University of Chicago, Ill.;

- DENTON S.EBEL, American Museum of Natural History,N.Y.;

- OTTO EUGSTER, University of Bern, Switzerland;

- JEAN JOUZEL, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace/LSCE, Saclay, France;

- DOUGLAS MARAUN,Potsdam University, Germany;

- URS NEU, Swiss Academy of Sciences,Bern;

- GAVIN A.SCHMIDT,NASA GISS and Center for Climate Systems Research,Columbia University,N.Y.;

- JEFF SEVERINGHAUS, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,San Diego, Calif.;

- ANDREW J.WEAVER,University of Victoria, B.C.,Canada; and

- JIM ZACHOS, University of California, Santa Cruz

1) A blantently false assertion that 'other factors' are considered when he knows perfectly well that other factors are ignored or minimized in the recent literature. CO2 is treated as the master 'control knob' for paleoclimate (those are the exact words used by scientists).

why yes... that 'control knob' reference has been picked up... hasn't it? Much to your chagrin - hey?

I posted a

link to this Dec,09 AGU presentation by Richard Alley

just prior to the Xmas break... - "The Biggest Control Knob - C02 in Earth's Climate History"... an account of all the lines of evidence of the role of CO2 in climate changes - a foundation as to why scientists are so certain that CO2 is the big driver in climate change.

you didn't like that Richard Alley video back then... you don't like it anymore today! (if anything, the most reputable Richard Alley, is ultra-conservative in his assertions... in his most carefully chosen words; but, again... you simply can't stomach the message - hey?)

2) An irrelevant spew on the effect of cosmic rays on current climate when we were talking about paleo climate.

hardly irrelevant when your linked paper, when it's authors, when the denialsphere trumpeted up the presumed affect on current day sensitivity (i.e., a lessening on sensitivity)... as I replied to your first melt-down:

bloody hell! You linked to a paper with a position that presumes on galactic cosmic rays... where one of it's co-author's, Shaviv, publicly made inferences to present day sensitivity levels... where the denialsphere, hyped the paper to the nth degree in terms of presenting a basis for reduced current sensitivity. And you're calling me out for addressing the paper in terms of both paleo-climate and 'modern-day' climate aspects?

3) An pathetic ad hom attack on a climate scientist who is willing publically discuss the gaps and problems with the numerical theory behind the CO2 - temperature link.

nope, sorry... your fake, trumped up claims of ad hominem don't stand the test of what's been posted... no ad hominem... simply responding to the paper you linked to. But I'm quite relieved. All this time, you railed against CO2 in the absence of any other alternatives... good to see you stepping up and advocating for cosmic rays!!!

[dre]

Don't be naive. Ward is jumping on the CO2 band wagon because it gets him funding. Scientists need to eat too. He could be right but lets not pretend his motives are altruistic.

[WIP]

All of which is in dire contradiction with your prior claim of us presently being three times over the Earth's capacity.

I was hoping you could follow the math, because statistics is not my strong suit! From what I got, if we are presently consuming 1.5 times a sustainable level of earth resources, and that number will rise to two times by 2030, assuming present population trends and GDP + the factoid mentioned about how the greater the amount of overshoot = reduced sustainable biocapacity of the environment -- then, we end up with a conclusion that our present population is consuming three times as much resources as the Earth can provide. You can either cut the global population to one third, or cut the environmental impact to one third...or some combination of the two -- but, just carrying on the way we are doing now leads to disaster.

And of course this is a very rough estimate, as an actual estimate of biocapacity depends on population, consumption and technology. But, if anything, the rush to industrialize in developing third world nations, and our inability to deal with our own environmental problems means we are heading for a crash -- whatever the size and scale, agricultural yields are going to drop because of the combined problems of groundwater depletion, destruction of topsoil, and climate instability that is creating more severe floods and droughts.

Again, that speaks to the deep inherent ambiguity of any such estimates. And, again, any such estimate depends far more on our level of technological advancement than it does on the Earth itself.

I didn't agree with this logic before, and I'm not going to start now. Whatever super-duper high tech fixes come along, it is not going to keep taking more and more resources without any cost.

One example would be what’s happening to fresh water aquifers all around the world. Currently over half of us are in countries where aquifers are being overpumped. As “fossil” aquifers are pumped (such as under the Sahara Desert), that water is not replaced. So when that water is depleted, pumping ends since there is no more water flowing in.

Non-fossil aquifers have a “recharge rate” – the rate at which new, fresh water flows in. As long as water is pumped out at or below the recharge rate, the aquifer will continue to supply the same amount of water year after year after year. However, these rechargeable aquifers are being overpumped. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Aquifer_depletion

How does a simple technological advance, like, for example, an all-electric car, or a fusion power plant, or a genetically modified crop, or a wood material substitute, etc, affect that estimate? Such advances are constantly being made, allowing us to support an ever growing number of humans on Earth. The only real fundamental limitation is the availability of energy, and we have not even begun to tap even a tiny fraction of the energy available.

As noted above, how does that electric car or fusion plant deal with declining fresh water all over the world?

[Bonam]

As noted above, how does that electric car or fusion plant deal with declining fresh water all over the world?

The fusion power plant powers the desalination plants that turn salt water (of which we have an abundance) into fresh water for human use. And you don't actually need a fusion plant for that either, any kind of power plant will do. In advanced countries wherever water is scarce and coastline is available, desal plants have been built or are being built. If the cost of natural fresh water continues to rise (due to resource depletion as you suggest) we'll just build more desalination plants. So, I'm not too worried about running out of water at all.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Bonam

[WIP]

Complete nonsense. Just more sterilization/one-child policy/totalitarianism disguised as climate alarmism.

No, just stopping the religious right from doing what they are now doing, would fix the population side of this problem. It doesn't take sterilization or one-child policies....simply an end to religious indoctrination against abortion and birth control by conservative religious leaders, be they Muslim, Catholic, or Evangelicals, has kept the populations increasing in third world nations that are running out of fresh water and arable land.

[WIP]

The fusion power plant powers the desalination plants that turn salt water (of which we have an abundance) into fresh water for human use. And you don't actually need a fusion plant for that either, any kind of power plant will do. In advanced countries wherever water is scarce and coastline is available, desal plants have been built or are being built. If the cost of natural fresh water continues to rise (due to resource depletion as you suggest) we'll just build more desalination plants. So, I'm not too worried about running out of water at all.

They already have lots of desalinization plants in the Arabian Peninsula, where oil revenues made it cost-effective to reclaim deserts. The problem is that the population in countries like Saudi Arabia is growing faster than any possible tech fix to sustain them. Back during the 1970's oil embargo, there were only 11 million people in Saudi Arabia; now there are over 30 million. And even countries that can turn seawater into fresh water have the problems posed by degradation of topsoil and in tropical countries, summer high temperatures are reaching levels that are destroying green-revolution hybrids.

[Bonam]

They already have lots of desalinization plants in the Arabian Peninsula, where oil revenues made it cost-effective to reclaim deserts. The problem is that the population in countries like Saudi Arabia is growing faster than any possible tech fix to sustain them.

Says who? The population density of Saudi Arabia is far far lower than that of Israel, and both were arid wastelands covered mainly in desert. Tech fix sure worked for Israel though.

Back during the 1970's oil embargo, there were only 11 million people in Saudi Arabia; now there are over 30 million.

And their birth rates will decline as their society advances, just like every other society that has advanced. Or, if it doesn't advance, then high population will be brought into balance by disease and starvation like in poor African countries.

And even countries that can turn seawater into fresh water have the problems posed by degradation of topsoil and in tropical countries, summer high temperatures are reaching levels that are destroying green-revolution hybrids.

Not sure what you mean by the term "green-revolution hybrid".

[WIP]

Says who? The population density of Saudi Arabia is far far lower than that of Israel, and both were arid wastelands covered mainly in desert. Tech fix sure worked for Israel though.

Most of their land is a rocky desert that's as useless as Moonscape. We'll have to check in on Israel, because right now the most under-reported story coming from there is the conflict with Palestinians over water use from the Jordan River and underground aquifers. Israel has taken control of these water sources, and as their population grows, they are taking more water.

And their birth rates will decline as their society advances, just like every other society that has advanced. Or, if it doesn't advance, then high population will be brought into balance by disease and starvation like in poor African countries.

They seem to be culturally stuck in patriarchy...similar to what the religious right wants for us over here. If they won't allow women into the workforce, and especially have control over reproduction (that seems to be what limits family size), they will just keep going on the same trend until collapse.

And if we consider what a source of instability young Saudi men are who leave the country, this will be a problem that spills over their borders.

Not sure what you mean by the term "green-revolution hybrid".

All of the high-yield wonder plants created during the 1960's Green Revolution. It stopped the frequent famines in India, and many other nations that were already on the brink of unsustainability at the time, but that was only a temporary reprieve, not a permanent solution. And those high yield plants are more susceptible to unstable climate than natural varieties:

The second problem is, of course, global warming. The rule of thumb is that with every one-degree C rise in average global temperature, we lose 10 percent of global food production. In some places, the crops will be damaged by drought; in others by much hotter temperatures. Or, as in Russia’s case today, by both.

So food production will be heading down as demand continues to increase, and something has to give. What will probably happen is that the amount of internationally traded grain will dwindle as countries ban exports and keep their supplies for themselves. That will mean that a country can no longer buy its way out of trouble when it has a local crop failure: there will not be enough exported grain for sale.

This is the vision of the future that has the soldiers and security experts worried: a world where access to enough food becomes a big political and strategic issue even for developed countries that do not have big surpluses at home. It would be a very ugly world indeed, teeming with climate refugees and failed states and interstate conflicts over water (which is just food at one remove).

http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2010/08/09/dramatic-depletion-of-world-food-production-linked-to-wildfires/

And this isn't just the Third World's problem:

Extreme heat is the single best predictor of corn and soybean yields in the United States. While average yields have risen continuously since World War II, we find no evidence that relative tolerance to extreme heat has improved between 1950 and 2005. Climate change forecasts project a sharp increase in extreme heat by the end of the century, with the potential to significantly reduce yields under current technologies.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16308.pdf

[dre]

Says who? The population density of Saudi Arabia is far far lower than that of Israel, and both were arid wastelands covered mainly in desert. Tech fix sure worked for Israel though.

And their birth rates will decline as their society advances, just like every other society that has advanced. Or, if it doesn't advance, then high population will be brought into balance by disease and starvation like in poor African countries.

Not sure what you mean by the term "green-revolution hybrid".

Tech fix sure worked for Israel though.

Bullshit. The vast majority of their water comes through their NWC and is pumped out of territories occupied by their military. They steal most of their water. Thats not a "tech fix", thats garden variety imperialism.

Youre correct however that technology can have an impact on how many humans the earth can sustain.

Edited January 15, 2011 by dre

[Shady]

No, just stopping the religious right from doing what they are now doing, would fix the population side of this problem. It doesn't take sterilization or one-child policies....simply an end to religious indoctrination against abortion and birth control by conservative religious leaders, be they Muslim, Catholic, or Evangelicals, has kept the populations increasing in third world nations that are running out of fresh water and arable land.

LOL! C02 levels have nothing to do with the so-called religious right. And your assertion of an over-populated earth is a myth/lie that's continually perpetrated by alarmists and wingnuts.

[dre]

Most of their land is a rocky desert that's as useless as Moonscape. We'll have to check in on Israel, because right now the most under-reported story coming from there is the conflict with Palestinians over water use from the Jordan River and underground aquifers. Israel has taken control of these water sources, and as their population grows, they are taking more water.

They seem to be culturally stuck in patriarchy...similar to what the religious right wants for us over here. If they won't allow women into the workforce, and especially have control over reproduction (that seems to be what limits family size), they will just keep going on the same trend until collapse.

And if we consider what a source of instability young Saudi men are who leave the country, this will be a problem that spills over their borders.

All of the high-yield wonder plants created during the 1960's Green Revolution. It stopped the frequent famines in India, and many other nations that were already on the brink of unsustainability at the time, but that was only a temporary reprieve, not a permanent solution. And those high yield plants are more susceptible to unstable climate than natural varieties:

The second problem is, of course, global warming. The rule of thumb is that with every one-degree C rise in average global temperature, we lose 10 percent of global food production. In some places, the crops will be damaged by drought; in others by much hotter temperatures. Or, as in Russia’s case today, by both.

So food production will be heading down as demand continues to increase, and something has to give. What will probably happen is that the amount of internationally traded grain will dwindle as countries ban exports and keep their supplies for themselves. That will mean that a country can no longer buy its way out of trouble when it has a local crop failure: there will not be enough exported grain for sale.

This is the vision of the future that has the soldiers and security experts worried: a world where access to enough food becomes a big political and strategic issue even for developed countries that do not have big surpluses at home. It would be a very ugly world indeed, teeming with climate refugees and failed states and interstate conflicts over water (which is just food at one remove).

http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2010/08/09/dramatic-depletion-of-world-food-production-linked-to-wildfires/

And this isn't just the Third World's problem:

Extreme heat is the single best predictor of corn and soybean yields in the United States. While average yields have risen continuously since World War II, we find no evidence that relative tolerance to extreme heat has improved between 1950 and 2005. Climate change forecasts project a sharp increase in extreme heat by the end of the century, with the potential to significantly reduce yields under current technologies.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16308.pdf

Once more of the world industrializes the human race will start to shrink pretty fast anyhow. Wealthy people want boobjobs and sports cars... not annoying little kids. The industrialized world has had a negative birthrate for quite some time now. In a hundred years there will probably be a few billion less humans than there is now.

[GostHacked]

Complete nonsense. Just more sterilization/one-child policy/totalitarianism disguised as climate alarmism.

Weather AGW is real or not, as the population grows, there will be less to go around. We can only grow so much at a time, it's strained as it is. We are continually using more and more resources because there are more and more people. It's not hard to understand that and not say it's alarmism ....actually it is ... people are going to be fighting over food in the very near future.

[Shady]

Weather AGW is real or not, as the population grows, there will be less to go around. We can only grow so much at a time, it's strained as it is. We are continually using more and more resources because there are more and more people. It's not hard to understand that and not say it's alarmism ....actually it is ... people are going to be fighting over food in the very near future.

I disagree. The birth rates in North America, Europe and Russia are essentially flat. And as India, China and other parts of the world become affluent, their birth rates will level off as well. As they become more advanced, so to does their ability to produce more food and fuel. Not to mention that new and better technology is constantly being created. It's not a zero/sum game.

It's a myth that the world is over-populated. As has been stated many times before, the entire world's population can fit in just the state of Texas alone.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Weather AGW is real or not, as the population grows, there will be less to go around. We can only grow so much at a time, it's strained as it is. We are continually using more and more resources because there are more and more people. It's not hard to understand that and not say it's alarmism ....actually it is ... people are going to be fighting over food in the very near future.

I'd say water is more likely even with desalination.

I disagree. The birth rates in North America, Europe and Russia are essentially flat. And as India, China and other parts of the world become affluent, their birth rates will level off as well. As they become more advanced, so to does their ability to produce more food and fuel. Not to mention that new and better technology is constantly being created. It's not a zero/sum game.

It's a myth that the world is over-populated. As has been stated many times before, the entire world's population can fit in just the state of Texas alone.

The population decrease will be small and not anywhere near enough to deal with the problems of these people then consuming more per capita. India is already producing damn near the maximum food it can produce, and they only survive because they consume so much less than we do. China is already beginning to have issues with producing enough food.

It's ironic that a scientific illiterate is the one arguing science will easily find a way to overcome the coming hurdles.

[wyly]

I'd say water is more likely even with desalination.

The population decrease will be small and not anywhere near enough to deal with the problems of these people then consuming more per capita. India is already producing damn near the maximum food it can produce, and they only survive because they consume so much less than we do. China is already beginning to have issues with producing enough food.

It's ironic that a scientific illiterate is the one arguing science will easily find a way to overcome the coming hurdles.

and food shortages could be coming our way as well, from an article in yesterdays G&M...it's estimated that 90+% of the native bumble bee population is gone, possibly destroyed by a combination of mites, virus, global warming and loss of habitat...cold weather that normally keeps mites in check from spreading a virus...a lot of our food requires bees for pollination...

[Guest TrueMetis]

and food shortages could be coming our way as well, from an article in yesterdays G&M...it's estimated that 90+% of the native bumble bee population is gone, possibly destroyed by a combination of mites, virus, global warming and loss of habitat...cold weather that normally keeps mites in check from spreading a virus...a lot of our food requires bees for pollination...

And nitrogen from fertilizers, which is becoming more expensive because natural gas prices are increasing. There simply isn't enough natural nitrogen in the soil to support the world population. Despite things like planting legumes that put nitrogen in the soil. (I just recently found out how ineffective a practice that was, needless to say it was depressing)

[WIP]

LOL! C02 levels have nothing to do with the so-called religious right.

The religious right, and the Catholic Church don't seem to have much success bringing back patriarchy over here, and encouraging women to have 5 to 10 children; but through charity and missionary work in Africa and other poor nations, they are preventing any serious efforts for population control. And this is in countries that are at or close to the breaking point, because of dwindling sources of fresh water, and erosion of topsoil. And, of course, every third world nation that has a Muslim majority, also has poor access to birth control and a culture that encourages patriarchy, and keeping women stuck in the baby-making business. This would be excusable to some degree, if there was still lots of available land and resources for the world's population.....but, there are no new worlds to conquer.

And your assertion of an over-populated earth is a myth/lie that's continually perpetrated by alarmists and wingnuts.

We are going to hit 7 billion this year; guess how many people were living on Earth a hundred years ago.....I think I'll just make you go through the effort and look it up.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is estimated that 40% of foodstuffs are wasted....production is not the problem...distribution and waste are. Potable water is a much bigger challenge.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/362201,40-of-food-produced-worldwide-is-wasted.html#

[Guest TrueMetis]

We are going to hit 7 billion this year; guess how many people were living on Earth a hundred years ago.....I think I'll just make you go through the effort and look it up.

I think we have already hit 7 billion.

[Shady]

I'd say water is more likely even with desalination.

You'd say that because you're an alarmist.

India is already producing damn near the maximum food it can produce

Just completely untrue.

We are going to hit 7 billion this year; guess how many people were living on Earth a hundred years ago.....I think I'll just make you go through the effort and look it up.

Who cares how many people were living on the earth 100 years ago? It doesn't mean your myth about the world being over-populated is true.

Once more of the world industrializes the human race will start to shrink pretty fast anyhow. Wealthy people want boobjobs and sports cars... not annoying little kids. The industrialized world has had a negative birthrate for quite some time now. In a hundred years there will probably be a few billion less humans than there is now.

Dre is right. I studied this in University. As education levels and standards of living increase, family size decreases. Especially as women become more educated and/or enter the workforce.

[WIP]

Once more of the world industrializes the human race will start to shrink pretty fast anyhow. Wealthy people want boobjobs and sports cars... not annoying little kids. The industrialized world has had a negative birthrate for quite some time now. In a hundred years there will probably be a few billion less humans than there is now.

From what I've seen lately, we don't have a hundred years to wait for the population to start dropping. For one thing, the environmental impacts of climate change are already having an impact on food production, which I hear we are going to notice with food prices this year, even without further disasters like the fires in Russia, droughts and floods in Australia etc.. And, we are not at stasis right now when it comes to population and our use of natural resources. We are in a state of "overshoot" where we are removing more natural resources than is being replenished.

If the irrational optimists are right, and modern living will reduce birth rates; we still have the problem that the modern, western way of life has an environmental impact many times greater than the average third world citizen. And we have an economic system in place that depends on growth to sustain itself, and caters to the whims of consumers, who many times have more crap than they honestly know what to do with. If there is a way to solve these problems without mass calamity, it doesn't appear to be easy, or forthcoming in the immediate future.

[Shady]

From what I've seen lately, we don't have a hundred years to wait for the population to start dropping.

That's because you're an alarmist. And unless you're advocating mass murder. There's nothing you can do about it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That's because you're an alarmist. And unless you're advocating mass murder. There's nothing you can do about it.

Yes don't actually argue against his points just throw out the alarmist label some more, I'm sure it will stick eventually.

[WIP]

I think we have already hit 7 billion.

6,867,905,957

This number may have changed since 5 seconds ago.

[Guest TrueMetis]

6,867,905,957

This number may have changed since 5 seconds ago.

That's a better source then my own, thank you.

ETA according to it we will reach 7 billion on November 29, 2012 at 8:26:56

Edited January 16, 2011 by TrueMetis