Open letter to UN Secretary General from 125+ Scientists

[wyly]

The Earth's population is predicted to peak at 15 billion. I think that's by 2100, but I don't know that for sure. The rate of CO2 increase in the atmposphere can be slowed by green technology and energy conservation, but that effect will be offset to some degree by the increase in population. And that's just the slowing of the rate of increase. Not the actual concentration.

I've read population will peak at mid century, I have no idea who or how that was determined, maybe it was based on future education rates...

the uncertainty is why we have climate projections and not predictions, unknown/unforeseen factors can come into play...

[Moonbox]

yes moon is back pretending to understand the science...here's the temp graph he claims I cherry picked the data didn't post back on page 2 "several decades of warming" http://globalwarming...-warming-trend/

You'd posted a stupid wiki graph going back to 1970.

a simple graph, grade school stuff and no one here wants to step up and show me where I'm wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png these 125+ charlatans trying to claim long term trends by deliberately using short term data , but a simple extension of the data shows a clear increase of temp....

That's what I was commenting on. Good try though.

not enough I'm cherry picking am I? here's the temps over the last 200yrs

http://scitechstory....sy-is-ended⤦/

What about the last 2000 years?

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/jun/6jun2012a5.html

We see the same thing. Go back further too. You'll not like the results.

you have to wonder about people's thought processes when they still stand by their discredited sources when it obvious even to them they're wrong... the "open letter to the UN"-charlatans and frauds

basic grade school science, graphing and logic and some people just don't get it...

wyly you couldn't discredit a hobo doomsayer on a New York subway. Your climate expertise doesn't extend any further than anyone's here, although you certainly do spend a lot more time than the vast majority of us pretending to be an expert on the subject.

[Guest]

So then we don't have to do anything about it because it will be offset by the population increase?

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was, the measures we are taking and are planning to take will have their positive effect on the atmosphere negated by the population increase. (More than, I imagine)

That's because the measures are not stringent enough. As I have argued to wyly, the measures we are willing to take will not help. The measures we could take, but are unwilling to, might, but we'll never know.

We have no right to this planet. (emphasis on "right", not "no") We are a happy insignificant little accident. We had better prepare for the changes, because we aren't going to stop them.

Edited December 3, 2012 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

Sorry, I thought you were opposing action.

edit: that's why your argument didn't make sense to me.

Edited December 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest]

Sorry, I thought you were opposing action.

edit: that's why your argument didn't make sense to me.

I'm opposing spending money on action that will have no effect. I believe levees are better than windmills, in other words.

I support the statement at the top of the article in the posted link.

[wyly]

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was, the measures we are taking and are planning to take will have their positive effect on the atmosphere negated by the population increase. (More than, I imagine)

That's because the measures are not stringent enough. As I have argued to wyly, the measures we are willing to take will not help. The measures we could take, but are unwilling to, might, but we'll never know.

We have no right to this planet. (emphasis on "right", not "no") We are a happy insignificant little accident. We had better prepare for the changes, because we aren't going to stop them.

I understand your position I can see the logic in it, we're pretty much in agreement we only differ in the end game...I hope you're right but I think I'm right...

[Fletch 27]

You'd posted a stupid wiki graph going back to 1970.

That's what I was commenting on. Good try though.

What about the last 2000 years?

http://www.nipccrepo...6jun2012a5.html

We see the same thing. Go back further too. You'll not like the results.

wyly you couldn't discredit a hobo doomsayer on a New York subway. Your climate expertise doesn't extend any further than anyone's here, although you certainly do spend a lot more time than the vast majority of us pretending to be an expert on the subject.

Its far tosay by this new piece of Environmental evidence that the VIKINGS were to blame!

Or is that racial profiling?

[wyly]

I'm opposing spending money on action that will have no effect. I believe levees are better than windmills, in other words.

I support the statement at the top of the article in the posted link.

and I think that's wrong....the cost of levees will dwarf alternative energy, a single surge barrier for New York's river is estimated to cost 7 billion...

[Guest]

and I think that's wrong....the cost of levees will dwarf alternative energy, a single surge barrier for New York's river is estimated to cost 7 billion...

Levees vs windmills is a general statement intending to convey the message, but having said that, how much damage did Sandy do?

[wyly]

Levees vs windmills is a general statement intending to convey the message

okay, I'll keep that mind...not to take everything so literally, check...

, but having said that, how much damage did Sandy do?

I read 70 billion , I may be wrong...

[Guest]

So they could have built ten levees?

[Moonbox]

and I think that's wrong....the cost of levees will dwarf alternative energy, a single surge barrier for New York's river is estimated to cost 7 billion...

Where are those numbers coming from, and where is the comparison with how much wind power is costing? Consider that New York is probably the world's (or at least North America's) biggest and most expensive coastal city, and at the same time compare that to how much money has been dumped into wind/solar and how little energy is actually being generated. $7B is bananas in comparison.

[Sleipnir]

basic grade school science, graphing and logic and some people just don't get it...

Depends on which schools they attended growing up. Some schools are better than others.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[wyly]

So they could have built ten levees?

ten river surge barriers, now start adding all the other rivers in the world, then add all the connecting levees for thousands of kilometers of coast line,...more than a few island nations will disappear and others will be heavily damaged by rising seas, ...countries like Bangladesh just don't have the cash to build the required barriers and levees( have a look at a map to get a sense of the scale of the engineering required for that country alone)and I doubt very, very much western nations are going to offer the cash to it...

[wyly]

Depends on which schools they attended growing up. Some schools are better than others.

but in canada? I find that hard to comprehend...some of the science is just so basic, simple stuff like interpreting the data on a graph, and some basic physic taught in high school show what some people claim is impossible, you don't need to be a scientist to grasp it...

some of the denial is politically based, it's deliberate...the continual claims of stalled warming or cooling based on a 1998 start date is childish any 8th grade student can point out that deception so I find difficult to believe an adult can stand by it unless they're politically motivated...and here we are 11 pages into the thread based on that very deception/falsehood...

[Guest]

ten river surge barriers, now start adding all the other rivers in the world, then add all the connecting levees for thousands of kilometers of coast line,...more than a few island nations will disappear and others will be heavily damaged by rising seas, ...countries like Bangladesh just don't have the cash to build the required barriers and levees( have a look at a map to get a sense of the scale of the engineering required for that country alone)and I doubt very, very much western nations are going to offer the cash to it...

I don't hold out a lot of hope for countries like Bangladesh. Not just due to rising sea levels but also disappearing agricultural land. I think most countries within a day's camel ride of the equator are going to be adventure playgrounds by 2100.

On the plus side, Northern Canada and Siberia will probably be able to feed the world.

[wyly]

I don't hold out a lot of hope for countries like Bangladesh. Not just due to rising sea levels but also disappearing agricultural land. I think most countries within a day's camel ride of the equator are going to be adventure playgrounds by 2100.

On the plus side, Northern Canada and Siberia will probably be able to feed the world.

I keep hearing how our farms will move north with warmer temps but having lived in northern canada I'm stumped as to how you intend to farm on bedrock or bottomless muskeg...grade school geography, the canadian shield is not farmland...

Bangladesh is going to become everyone's problem when those 150,000,000 begin to lose their coastal farmland where do you think they'll want to go? who is going to feed them?

[TimG]

I don't hold out a lot of hope for countries like Bangladesh.

Except the claim that Bangladesh is threaten by rising seas is a pathetic lie by activists seeking to cash in. There are coastal erosion problems in Bangladesh which are often played up as a sea level rise but there is no evidence of actual sea level rise.

[Guest]

I keep hearing how our farms will move north with warmer temps but having lived in northern canada I'm stumped as to how you intend to farm on bedrock or bottomless muskeg...grade school geography, the canadian shield is not farmland...

Bangladesh is going to become everyone's problem when those 150,000,000 begin to lose their coastal farmland where do you think they'll want to go? who is going to feed them?

Well, that's why I said probably. Agriculture isn't a strong point.

Things are not looking good for the starving masses.

[Guest]

Except the claim that Bangladesh is threaten by rising seas is a pathetic lie by activists seeking to cash in. There are coastal erosion problems in Bangladesh which are often played up as a sea level rise but there is no evidence of actual sea level rise.

Maybe. That's another argument from the one was involved in, which was about how best to spend the money.

[TimG]

Maybe. That's another argument from the one was involved in, which was about how best to spend the money.

The fact that the actual magnitude of SLR is unknown and the effects are mixed in with other problems like coastal erosion supports your view that if money is to be spent it should be spent on adaption to deal with actual problems. Trying to reduce CO2 levels is a huge waste of time and money. Edited December 4, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

I keep hearing how our farms will move north with warmer temps but having lived in northern canada I'm stumped as to how you intend to farm on bedrock or bottomless muskeg...grade school geography, the canadian shield is not farmland...

Bangladesh is going to become everyone's problem when those 150,000,000 begin to lose their coastal farmland where do you think they'll want to go? who is going to feed them?

Grade school geography would have also taught you that not all of Northern Canada is the Canadian Shield. I know you like to toss out that, "grade school" stuff all the time, but it would work better if you had a clue before you say crap like that. Look up a map of the Canadian Shield, then look up a map of Canada's farming regions. There is a LOT of space neither occupies right now (ie most of Yukon and Northern Alberta/Saskatchewan), not to mention the longer growing seasons Canada would enjoy.

As for Bangladesh, their problem is of their own doing, and much the same holds for Pakistan and India. They're rivers aren't running dry because of global warming. Their rivers are running dry because there's way too many people there and they're over-farming. The only way that problem's getting solved is fewer people living there, and Mother Nature is going to sort that out one day. More likely, and sooner rather than later, however, we're going to see India and pals go to war over and the world will watch in horror.

[dre]

The Earth's population is predicted to peak at 15 billion. I think that's by 2100, but I don't know that for sure. The rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere can be slowed by green technology and energy conservation, but that effect will be offset to some degree by the increase in population. And that's just the slowing of the rate of increase. Not the actual concentration.

Actually the earths population is widely projected to peak at 9-10 billion not 15.

The rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere can be slowed by green technology and energy conservation, but that effect will be offset to some degree by the increase in population.

I disagree with that. If we decide to make it a priority we could pretty much stop human co2 emissions even with technologies in development today.

[Bonam]

I disagree with that. If we decide to make it a priority we could pretty much stop human co2 emissions even with technologies in development today.

Yes if we decided to make it an absolutely overriding priority, we could probably eliminate around 90% of emissions within 10 years or so, but legislation draconian enough to force such cuts is a political impossibility as you well know. But even if it could be done, that would only be in advanced nations. There is no way that China or India could do that right now. And good luck telling a billion people in Africa to stop burning wood for light, heat, and farmland.

Actually the earths population is widely projected to peak at 9-10 billion not 15.

On the contrary, it looks to me like no one has the remotest clue what the Earth's population will do and all those numbers are little better than arbitrary guesses:

Basically it can be anywhere between the green line and the red line, that is, it is trending to anywhere between 0 and infinity.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Bonam

[Moonbox]

Yes if we decided to make it an absolutely overriding priority, we could probably eliminate around 90% of emissions within 10 years or so, but legislation draconian enough to force such cuts is a political impossibility as you well know. But even if it could be done, that would only be in advanced nations. There is no way that China or India could do that right now. And good luck telling a billion people in Africa to stop burning wood for light, heat, and farmland.

Even Canada couldn't eliminate Co2 in 10 years. The tech isn't there yet. If we decided to stop driving cars, turn our lights out by dark and go to bed, and spend trillions shutting down our current infrastructure and building new and inefficient tech, then maybe we could do it, but only in fantasy land would it even be a possibility.