2006 was a hot one in the US

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has compiled the final statistics on the 2006 weather in the US, and finds that it was the hottest year on record.<BR><BR>Article.

 

[tmarkt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgar:<BR>

Originally posted by tmarkt:<BR>Well, if the ice on earth is melting and then the ice on mars is melting, is it coincidence or is there a common factor (like maybe....the sun)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is exactly the type of logic that sounds good on the surface, but doesn't actually show anything. Just because the sun may be causing an increase in temperature, doesn't mean that either a) it is the only thing causing an increase, or that b) other causes don't dwarf it. As linked earlier by Dr. Jay : solar changes are too weak to explain global warming. Indeed, the whole global warming on Mars concept is itself highly questionable. <BR><BR>First, all I am pointing out is that ice on both mars and earth is starting to melt. I did not say the sun is the reason, I am saying it may be the (or one of) reason(s). And second, other than my view of Kyoto, most of what I have said (sunspots, sun's energy increasing, ice on mars melting, CO2 lagging Temp on ice core data) is true and they are good reasons in my opinion to have some skepticism. <BR><BR>Here are some links that say the effect of the sun could be much more than "weak."<BR><BR>http://www.spacenow.org.uk/index.cfm?code=theplanets&subcode=article&recID=437<BR>http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc032103.html<BR>http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm<BR>http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story03-20-03.html<BR>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm<BR><BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgar:<BR><BR>2) I'm not sure how your views of the kyoto protocol is one of a few "good reasons to be skeptical that the warming is from excess C02." It may or may not be a reason to be skeptical of the politicians involved, I don't know, I'm really not qualified to speak on the topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It is a good reason to be skeptical because Kyoto WOULDN"T have done much, if anything at all, to reduce the total worldwide production of man-made emmisions since it EXEMPTED developing nations (including giant communist China) from it. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgar:<BR>4) As for the lag between CO2 and temperature, this merely shows that CO2 does not START the warming, it does not say that CO2 does not play a role yet another realclimate.org reference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, if CO2 does not START the warming, then why was ice core data constantly referenced as proof of CO2 and how it causes warming? <BR><BR>BTW, don't get the wrong idea that I don't think CO2 causes warming. I accept the conclusions of scientists who say that it does trap heat. However, it is a MINOR greenhouse gas and humans are only responsible for a percent or two of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't see the cause for alarm, espcially when Kyoto would have resulted in transferring production of CO2 rather than reducing it. <BR><BR><BR> - Mark

 

[Lagrange]

Thanks for the info Dr Jay.<br><br>I was thinking of 10s-100s MYrs when considering the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature but obviously the short term relationship is fairly well correlated.<br><br>800 KYrs - Baahhh, you need to start thinking of the long term. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

 

[wattly]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is it that hard to (1) use energy efficient appliances and light-bulbs, (2) use alternative means of transportation (walk, bike, public transit), (3) drive energy efficient cars and carpool when possible, and (4) ask your electric company about green energy sources? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>(5) Eat much less food since farming contributes more greenhouse gases than transportation. The nastier ones, too.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're right, more should be done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>How much of a temperature change would Kyoto have caused? <BR><BR>Reading this global warming stuff is like having Pat Robertson read you the Qur'an: you just know he has a hidden agenda. The issue has been so discolored that it isn't even a scientific matter anymore, just political.

 

[Mister Morden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Matt Clary:<BR>Recharging an electric car from a hydrocarbon power plant is just stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm not sure that's the case. Isn't it easier to build an efficient and low-polluting power plant if, unlike your car's power plant, it's huge and immobile?<BR><BR>Any engineers want to answer?

 

[BackBlast]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jonabbey:<BR>...let me just say that capitalism is a scourge upon the backs of the masses.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Capitalism is the only moral political/economic system.

 

[Cadallin]

Let us suppose, for a second, that the claims of of warming on Mars are accurate, and that this is clear evidence that it is solar changes that are the cause of global warming. I'm not saying that's true, but let's just assume so for a moment.<BR><BR>Even if that is the case, it does nothing to discredit a) that CO2 is in fact a Greenhouse gas, and that releasing copious amounts of it and other compounds (like NOx, or H2SO4) is a bad idea, and b) that studies have shown that the consequences of a warmer earth are in general quite negative for humanity (and also for other charismatic fauna generally). Even if we're not the cause of Global warming, it is still an extremely dangerous situation.<BR><BR>Given that, it seems much more sensible to me to ask what we can DO about it. Worst case scenario, reducing industrial pollution isn't going to make the earth a worse place to live. Looking into ways to reverse the warming trend would be nice as well. We could start by artificially increasing the earth's albedo, and there are a variety of ways to do that.

 

[Bentley Strange]

It is just worth noting for those that cite "RealClimate" as a source, RC is not strictly a science site but an advocacy one. It is thoroughly unreliable on the science.<BR><BR>Hell, they still thing the "Hockey Stick" graph can be defended on scientific terms. The dismissal of a significant solar effect is made on religious (the CO2 religion) grounds, for example it is difficult to attribute the warming trend from the end of the LIA (in the mid-late 19th Century) to the late 1930s to CO2, and yet the alte 30's were essentially as warm as it is now.

 

[prndll]

foolishness and rubbish......<BR><BR>With all that so-called data that so many people try to use, I still have seen nothing that proves the human race created or has the ability to change global warming. I think it is rather obvious that it is happening. The thing that I so disgaree with is the reasons that are given as to why. Man kind is not powerfull enough to do the things that are being said. It is the hight of human arragance to think that we have that kind of power. No one can give reasons as to why this happened last time since the last time there wasn't the polution creating technologies we now have. Not only does man lack the power to make the sun hotter or change it's gravitational pull, man also lacks the power to overcome the "stellar drift" that does accur. I personally tend to believe that our planet is moving closer to the sun. There still is no real reason given as to why the ozone hole isn't above the most densly populated cities or over the places where smog is the worst. Ya know, a single vulcano can erupt and put out more toxic and harmfull gasses than all the automobiles ever created (just one).<BR><BR>I don't doubt for a minute that the earth is getting warmer. I don't doubt that global warming is actually happening. What I doubt is the human element in all this. Man kind simply does not have the ability to change this....one way or the other. There are larger forces than man.

 

[jonabbey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by prndll:<BR>foolishness and rubbish......<BR><BR>With all that so-called data that so many people try to use, I still have seen nothing that proves the human race created or has the ability to change global warming. I think it is rather obvious that it is happening. The thing that I so disgaree with is the reasons that are given as to why. Man kind is not powerfull enough to do the things that are being said. It is the hight of human arragance to think that we have that kind of power. No one can give reasons as to why this happened last time since the last time there wasn't the polution creating technologies we now have. Not only does man lack the power to make the sun hotter or change it's gravitational pull, man also lacks the power to overcome the "stellar drift" that does accur. I personally tend to believe that our planet is moving closer to the sun. There still is no real reason given as to why the ozone hole isn't above the most densly populated cities or over the places where smog is the worst. Ya know, a single vulcano can erupt and put out more toxic and harmfull gasses than all the automobiles ever created (just one).<BR><BR>I don't doubt for a minute that the earth is getting warmer. I don't doubt that global warming is actually happening. What I doubt is the human element in all this. Man kind simply does not have the ability to change this....one way or the other. There are larger forces than man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>O..kay.<BR><BR>I can't tell if you're being serious about this. On the chance that you are..<BR><BR>Does this mean that you think that humanity does not have the power to significantly increase the carbon dioxide loading in the atmosphere? That really is happening, it's plainly demonstrated by experimental evidence, and no one has claimed that the increase in CO2 is not due to us humans. We really do produce a *lot* of CO2, every day. Far more than any volcano does.<BR><BR>From all measurements and trends, it really does look as though mankind is going to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Atmospheric physics being what they are, it appears that this should increase the Earth's temperature equilibrium by a number of degrees.<BR><BR>Now, there may be countervailing feedbacks which will reduce (<B>or amplify</B>) that effect, but if we're big enough to noticeably alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and we are, I don't see where the assumption of our impotence to have global effects comes from.

 

[jonabbey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tmarkt:<BR>Well, if CO2 does not START the warming, then why was ice core data constantly referenced as proof of CO2 and how it causes warming? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Because CO2 and warming indicators were very strongly correlated, and the Earth did not get warm beyond a certain point without the CO2 release (presumably due to a positive feedback in response to an initial warming) participating in the warm-up.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, don't get the wrong idea that I don't think CO2 causes warming. I accept the conclusions of scientists who say that it does trap heat. However, it is a MINOR greenhouse gas and humans are only responsible for a percent or two of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't see the cause for alarm, espcially when Kyoto would have resulted in transferring production of CO2 rather than reducing it. <BR><BR><BR> - Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by a third since they started the Mauna Loa observations. That's us. And it's on an ever accelerating course upwards.<BR><BR>If CO2 did not linger in the atmosphere for as long as it does before being processed through the carbon cycle, we might have such a little impact as you say, but it doesn't, and we're altering things quite significantly.<BR><BR>And as for Kyoto, no one thinks Kyoto was enough, and the United States certainly didn't think it ought to be ratified, because it put the US at a comparative disadvantage.<BR><BR>The politics and logic behind Kyoto was that the developed nations had put most of the supplemental CO2 into the atmosphere, and that it would be unacceptable to the developing nations to be denied the possibility of enjoying the benefits of industrialization as we in the West have done.<BR><BR>Politics is the art of compromise, and in this case the United States chose not to accept that compromise. And why should they, if global warming is the biggest hoax pulled on the American public since etc. etc. etc.<BR><BR>But that doesn't mean the issue isn't real, it doesn't mean it's not serious, and if you have a better global strategy for equitably forestalling (geologically) rapid climate change, an increasing rate of species extinction, and mass dislocation of cities and people, by all means please speak up.

 

[jonabbey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bentley Strange:<BR>It is just worth noting for those that cite "RealClimate" as a source, RC is not strictly a science site but an advocacy one. It is thoroughly unreliable on the science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Ah, you're a climate scientist yourself, are you?<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hell, they still thing the "Hockey Stick" graph can be defended on scientific terms. The dismissal of a significant solar effect is made on religious (the CO2 religion) grounds, for example it is difficult to attribute the warming trend from the end of the LIA (in the mid-late 19th Century) to the late 1930s to CO2, and yet the alte 30's were essentially as warm as it is now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Even if we were to stipulate about the late 30's being "essentially as warm," (and they weren't, not nearly, not on a global level), that doesn't mean that what's driving warming _now_ isn't CO2.<BR><BR>Lots of things have changed the climate in the past, lots of things will change the climate in the future, the question is how fast will it happen, how well will the biosphere be able to cope with change at such a pace, and most especially, how will we?<BR><BR>Fossil fuels are great, no question, but there are alternatives, and adopting greater efficiency and moving to less carbon-intensive energy harvesting techniques is entirely doable, if we decide that we are willing to make those changes.

 

[prndll]

I never said we don't have an affect on things, to question that is laughable. I'm saying no matter what we do, this is going to happen anyway. It has happened before and it will happen again. Even if every automobile were destroyed and every chemical plant were completely shut down. Even if we all completely stopped using deoderant and quit making panty hose. Even if the human population were cut down to 5 percent of what it currently is (globally) and all that exhaled CO2 were not there. If this is going to happen, it will happen anyway.

 

[le grand fuzzy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Matt Clary:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR><BR>Also not having a solution to the problem does not negate the existence of said problem.<BR><BR>Edit - PS Thanks for pointing out the obvious to axia777! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No problemo. I agree there is a problem (or will be), but until someone comes up with some realistic ways to produce energy other than fossil fuels, we need to buy flip-flops and t-shirts. Nuclear energy seems to most likely method with our current technology. We should be funding research on ways to ensure safety and building nuke plants like they Uranium is going out of style. Recharging an electric car from a hydrocarbon power plant is just stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The technology exists and is constantly improving, the issue is the 'omg their's a nuclear plant in my backyard, the world's going to end now' bullshit that the US is stuck in. That and the fact that the US is making it hard on itself by refusing current processing techniques based on worries of nuclear weapons proliferation, as they figure everyone will imitate the US, even though the UK, France, and Japan already are reprocessing their nuclear fuel. Long story short, the US is filled with idiots.

 

[jonabbey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by prndll:<BR>I never said we don't have an affect on things, to question that is laughable. I'm saying no matter what we do, this is going to happen anyway. It has happened before and it will happen again. Even if every automobile were destroyed and every chemical plant were completely shut down. Even if we all completely stopped using deoderant and quit making panty hose. Even if the human population were cut down to 5 percent of what it currently is (globally) and all that exhaled CO2 were not there. If this is going to happen, it will happen anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>We don't know that the warming we're seeing would be happening without us.. given the physics of what's happening, it couldn't really happen without us on the sort of timescale it is now.<BR><BR>But, hey, I'll go you one better. It may not warm as it is without us.. in fact, it may be heading towards an ice age in the next ten thousand years. Maybe our CO2 emissions are the equivalent of throwing another log on the fire, against the cold and the dark.<BR><BR>That would be pretty swell, and extremely good news for us.. but it's hard to get that just right, without overshooting and making the room pretty uncomfortable.<BR><BR>That sort of precision is what I imagine is hard for us to do on a global scale.

 

[prndll]

jonabbey:<BR>I see no indication whatsoever (either way) that "....it couldn't really happen without us on the sort of timescale it is now."<BR><BR>How do you really know?<BR><BR>From what I hear, there is enough problematic gasses trapped in the ice that it would far overshadow what we are doing to the planet.

 

[edgar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tmarkt:<BR>I did not say the sun is the reason, I am saying it may be the (or one of) reason(s). <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>OK, I'll agree that (for all I know) the sun may be one of the reasons for increasing temperatures on the earth... but you listed it as a reason to be skeptical that CO2 was not the primary reason... My earlier logic still stands as far as I see. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>And second, other than my view of Kyoto, most of what I have said (sunspots, sun's energy increasing, ice on mars melting, CO2 lagging Temp on ice core data) is true and they are good reasons in my opinion to have some skepticism. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I thought I gave pretty good reasons why they aren't cause for serious skepticism. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here are some links that say the effect of the sun could be much more than "weak."<BR><BR>http://www.spacenow.org.uk/index.cfm?code=theplanets&subcode=article&recID=437 </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>All this link says is that one proxy from one ice core indicates that solar activity is higher in the last 60 years than it has been for the last 1150 years. a) 1150 years is a very short time period when you are talking about climate records. b) it says nothing about the relative contribution of this solar activity on climate compared to that of CO2 or other common climate forcings. <BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc032103.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This one only talks about a 24year increase in solar activity and it even points out this would not cause significant climate change. There are a few suggestions that if the trend continued long enough it would cause significant change. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This one I think is citing the same 60year report of the first study and even finishes with a paragraph quoting a scientist that over the past 20years human activities have dominated climate change. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story03-20-03.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This one talks about the exact same study that your second link did. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And this one talks about the same study your first and third links do. So far your aren't doing much convincing over here. <BR><BR>I don't doubt that the sun can be responsible for climate change, in fact I would hope that all self-respecting climate scientists will tell you that it can. Indeed, orbital changes in solar forcing is believed to be one of the primary drivers of the climate system over long time scales. That the sun can change climate isn't cause for skepticism about the role of CO2 anymore than my being able to walk to work is cause for skepticism about my ability to ride my bike to work. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>It is a good reason to be skeptical because Kyoto WOULDN"T have done much, if anything at </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm still confused here, how does kyoto not doing much negate the science? as I said earlier, it may be cause for skepticism of the politics involved, but I see no relation to the science. Apparently we are just talking past each other on this point. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Well, if CO2 does not START the warming, then why was ice core data constantly referenced as proof of CO2 and how it causes warming? <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Starting and causing are two different things. The correlation between the two helps to confirm the theory (based on the physics involved) that CO2 causes warming. As others have said, in the past, some other process may have initiated the warming. That does not mean that CO2 does not itself lead to warming. Thus your argument about the lag is not cause for skepticism. If CO2 were inversely correlated with temperature, than that would be cause for skepticism about CO2 causing temperature changes. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>BTW, don't get the wrong idea that I don't think CO2 causes warming. I accept the conclusions of scientists who say that it does trap heat. However, it is a MINOR greenhouse gas and humans are only responsible for a percent or two of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>How is it minor? Its forcing is minor relative to water vapor, but that does not mean it will have an "minor" effect on the climate. Indeed, simple radiative transfer calculations show that it should have a large impact (large being defined relative to its impact on the human population). Another big difference compared to water vapor (as others have pointed out in this thread already) is the time scales involved. The residence time in the atmosphere for CO2 is MUCH longer than the residence time for water vapor, thus, if we put it up there, it is going to stay up there for a while. Water vapor cycles through much faster, and thus adding water vapor to the atmosphere no will have little to no effect in 50 years, especially compared to adding CO2 now, despite the fact that water vapor is a "stronger" greenhouse gas. Please explain what you mean, because at the moment it sounds like you are just quoting what you have heard from other people when it doesn't actually make any sense. <BR><BR>To take it a step further, the radiative forcing of anthropogenic CO2 (the change in forcing from pre-industrial times) is on the order of 1-2W/m^2. This can seem minor when you consider that the input from the sun in the middle of the day near the equator is around to 1000W/m^2! This is easy for a talking head to pick up on. The hard part is teasing out what any of that really means. So you start accounting for other factors, most of that energy is reflected... then a lot is emitted as longwave radiation... The key is to look at NET values. On NET (integrated over space and some "long-enough" period of time), the energy balance for the earth is very close to 0 W/m^2. If it weren't the earth would be heating up VERY fast. When you look at it that way, a few W/m^2 is HUGE. <BR><BR>So, what do you mean when you say CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, and how does that translate into impact on people and the climate? <BR><BR>Also, you state that humans are responsible for only a few percent of CO2 in the atmosphere. I think you have another misconception here. Humans are only responsible for a few percent of the fluxes to and from the atmosphere... this is very different. It may be fair to say that humans are responsible for around 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere (that is roughly the increase from pre-industrial times). Again, on NET, the natural fluxes are close to zero... but throw in a few percent increase caused by people each year and over time that adds up. <BR><BR>My point in all of that is to say that calling CO2 a "minor" greenhouse gas is misleading in the current context, and that statement, on its own, should not be "cause for skepticism". <BR><BR><BR><BR>Also, your logic on Kyoto continues to make no sense. Just because Kyoto may not have improved things much doesn't mean there isn't a problem in the first place.

 

[edgar]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by prndll:<br>From what I hear, there is enough problematic gasses trapped in the ice that it would far overshadow what we are doing to the planet. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Do you mean methane trapped in permafrost and or clathrates? yes, those could do a LOT. And, as I understand it, it is likely to be released if we keep heating up that ice. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

 

[prndll]

edgar:<BR>That's about like claiming that if man destroys the rain forest, we will see terrible new diseases.<BR>-----------------------------------------<BR>No one wants to destroy what we have......except for maybe the insane in the middle east. The dead make no money or products and everyone loses. You lose, I lose, we all lose. There is no logic in this.<BR><BR>Man will kill himself long before destroying the planet. This is quite sad but very true. Our own fear will destroy us. You give we things that are questionable at best and I will do nothing more than watch. You give me truth and I might be motivated. Dilusional aragance that man can destroy the planet so easily (just by existing) only motivates that idiots. This aragance is now moving away from a planetary scale to that of the solar system. lol....we can't even seem to come up with a cure for the common cold. Inspite of the fact that people would lose money on that cure, other people would become more wealthy than they could possibly imagine by that cure.<BR><BR>Like I said earlier, there are larger forces at work here. Mankind is only part of it. These things are in constant motion and change is inevitable. There are still plenty of things about this planet and the sun and the solar system that we haven't even scratched the surface of yet.

 

[kdavis]

I'm fairly concerned about the release of gigatons of Carbon Dioxide, but not really because of the thermal effects. The planet has been there before - with higher CO2 levels - but not for a long time. Mammals evolved away from benefitting from that environment, and fish adapted to lower acidity in the water. It isn't that life won't go on with high CO2 concentrations, but they would give preference to different, more ancient life forms.<BR><BR>Let's not blame "big oil". Remember, people use oil. Oil companies don't make oil solely for their own use. Coal is even a bigger problem, with very high carbon concentration, only a little hydrogen, and enough sulfur (eek).<BR><BR>One group I blame is "environmentalists" who oppose nuclear power, which competes with coal power, but doesn't emit anything.<BR><BR>I expect that actual temperature increases will only be the tip of the iceberg compared to having people living with different CO2 levels than those under which we evolved, and I feel (but can't prove) that if we could do a controlled experiment, we would find that increasing rates of everything from autism to allergies can be attributed to this.<BR><BR>I don't think anything is ever going to be done. There are too many nations, each unwilling to sacrifice when others do not.

 

[gsfprez]

Dec 2006 was the hottest on record across the country? And Colorado was colored "orange" in the chart?<BR><BR>i moved into my new house in Colorado a month ago, and i haven't yet seen the fscking grass because its covered in snow... and i live down in Colorado Springs.<BR><BR>i cannot buy into a single month being called hot while there have been back to back to back (to back tomorrow) snow storms and cold so low that the snow is not leaving.

 

[gsfprez]

http://wwwa.accuweather.com/pressroom.asp?pr=wx_258.htm<BR><BR>yup... 2006's winter is practically going to be a sauna.<BR><BR>i'm never going to get my roof replaced at this rate - what with all the global warming snow going on here. Or is that "climate change" snow?

 

[IFeelFree]

If the earth's population continues to grow at a geometric rate, global warming will be only one of several severe problems we'll encounter in the not-too-distant future. Peak oil, water shortages, resource wars, widespread famine, and economic collapse, are all possible, even likely, if the world population increases unchecked. The total amount of carbon in the biosphere is finite. A possible hopeful sign is that fertility rates are declining in developed countries, and to a lesser extent in developing countries. If this trend continues there may be some hope that the world population could attain a sustainable state, provided that population stabilizes at a level where sustainable energy and food production are possible.

 

[hpsgrad]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gsfprez:<BR>http://wwwa.accuweather.com/pressroom.asp?pr=wx_258.htm<BR><BR>yup... 2006's winter is practically going to be a sauna.<BR><BR>i'm never going to get my roof replaced at this rate - what with all the global warming snow going on here. Or is that "climate change" snow? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Weather is not identical to climate.<BR><BR>Neither is the plural of anecdote "data."<BR><BR>The data gathered by NOAA and analyzed to come to the conclusions reported here at Ars are all public. Please point to that data when claiming that the analysis is mistaken. Please point to alternative data when claiming that the data are mistaken.

 

[jonabbey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gsfprez:<BR>Dec 2006 was the hottest on record across the country? And Colorado was colored "orange" in the chart?<BR><BR>i moved into my new house in Colorado a month ago, and i haven't yet seen the fscking grass because its covered in snow... and i live down in Colorado Springs.<BR><BR>i cannot buy into a single month being called hot while there have been back to back to back (to back tomorrow) snow storms and cold so low that the snow is not leaving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>But that could still be unusually warm if the temperatures were averaging 15 degrees rather than 10, or 10 rather than 5..

 

[Freeman]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by prndll:<br>foolishness and rubbish......<br><br>With all that so-called data that so many people try to use, I still have seen nothing that proves the human race created or has the ability to change global warming. I think it is rather obvious that it is happening. The thing that I so disgaree with is the reasons that are given as to why. Man kind is not powerfull enough to do the things that are being said. It is the hight of human arragance to think that we have that kind of power. No one can give reasons as to why this happened last time since the last time there wasn't the polution creating technologies we now have. Not only does man lack the power to make the sun hotter or change it's gravitational pull, man also lacks the power to overcome the "stellar drift" that does accur. I personally tend to believe that our planet is moving closer to the sun. There still is no real reason given as to why the ozone hole isn't above the most densly populated cities or over the places where smog is the worst. Ya know, a single vulcano can erupt and put out more toxic and harmfull gasses than all the automobiles ever created (just one).<br><br>I don't doubt for a minute that the earth is getting warmer. I don't doubt that global warming is actually happening. What I doubt is the human element in all this. Man kind simply does not have the ability to change this....one way or the other. There are larger forces than man. </div>
</blockquote>...and you are even gracious enough to provide us with a caveat, a warning of what is to follow.<br><br>A one stop shopping post.<br><br>Thank you. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br>.

 

[edgar]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gsfprez:<br>i cannot buy into a single month being called hot while there have been back to back to back (to back tomorrow) snow storms and cold so low that the snow is not leaving. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>that's the beauty of anecdotal evidence alright.<br><br>[edit : <blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i live down in Colorado Springs. </div>
</blockquote> ah that explains it, I live in Boulder, could stereo types get any better than that? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

 

[edgar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by prndll:<BR>edgar:<BR>That's about like claiming that if man destroys the rain forest, we will see terrible new diseases.<BR>-----------------------------------------<BR>and on and on...<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I have to admit to being a little confused. I don't think anyone here is saying we are destroying the planet, much less the solar system. I think we (I am at least) would argue that the socioeconomic harm * the probability of anthropogenic climate change is greater than the likely socioeconomic harm caused by doing something about it (and it is not clear that doing something about it will be harmful on net, only to companies that have based their business around fossil fuels). You think predicting climate is hard? try predicting the economy. <BR><BR>And then you make grandiose claims about larger forces at work... did we just enter into a metaphysical conversation somehow?

 

[prndll]

edgar:<BR>metaphysical?<BR>Do you not see that solar movement is larger than man?

 

[reever]

I hope we go fully nuclear in the next 50 years for all of our energy needs. I also welcome our global warming overlords, nobody likes cold weather. Also discussing global warming seems like a giant exercise in futility for all parties involved, have we actually gotten anywhere in the last 20 years in terms of finding an answer? Sooner or later nobody is going to care so really what's the point?

 

[FogleBird]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lithium79:<BR>~10% isn't that bad of a sample really. Most phone surveys call a few thousand people at most. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's not 10%...<BR><BR>400,000 / 4,500,000,000 = 0.0000888 = 0.0088%

 

[Lone Shepherd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">man also lacks the power to overcome the "stellar drift" that does accur. I personally tend to believe that our planet is moving closer to the sun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>lollerskates

 

[Griz]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IFeelFree:<br>If the earth's population continues to grow at a geometric rate, global warming will be only one of several severe problems we'll encounter in the not-too-distant future. Peak oil, water shortages, resource wars, widespread famine, and economic collapse, are all possible, even likely, if the world population increases unchecked. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Maybe global warming will solve those problems. Maybe the earth will warm up enough that we can grow sugarcane in the midwest and grain in Siberia and Canada, solving our energy and food problems. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

 

[MaxJenius]

I don't know if global warming is anthropogenic or not and I don't care. Asthma rates in LA are enough for me to want 0 emission vehicles, etc. Who wants to breate this shit, regardless of the temperature?

 

[Dr. Jay]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lagrange:<br>I was thinking of 10s-100s MYrs when considering the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature but obviously the short term relationship is fairly well correlated.<br><br>800 KYrs - Baahhh, you need to start thinking of the long term. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Yeah, it's clear that the most relevant comparison for current conditions involves comparing them to other conditions within the time that the earth's been in a regular glacial cycle. But it's also important to note that the glacial cycle appears to be a relatively recent occurrence in the grand scheme of the 4.5 billion years worth of earth history. Examining earlier climate data can be informative, but it's not clear how much something like the PETM can tell us about what to expect temperature-wise.

 

[IFeelFree]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Griz:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IFeelFree:<br>If the earth's population continues to grow at a geometric rate, global warming will be only one of several severe problems we'll encounter in the not-too-distant future. Peak oil, water shortages, resource wars, widespread famine, and economic collapse, are all possible, even likely, if the world population increases unchecked. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Maybe global warming will solve those problems. Maybe the earth will warm up enough that we can grow sugarcane in the midwest and grain in Siberia and Canada, solving our energy and food problems. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>At best, that would only postpone the problem for a short period. More likely, many agricultural areas would turn into desert. Also, we depend on hydrocarbon resources for producing that fertilizer that the majority of our agriculture requires. At some point our energy expenditure exceeds what we can pump out of the ground. If population growth continues unchecked, we will be headed for serious problems. The only long-term solution is sustainable (i.e., non-hydrocarbon) energy production and food production which does not require hydrocarbon-derived fertilizers. There are some who believe that would be possible only with a significantly smaller human population than we have at present.

 

[DDopson]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IFeelFree:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Griz:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IFeelFree:<br>If the earth's population continues to grow at a geometric rate, global warming will be only one of several severe problems we'll encounter in the not-too-distant future. Peak oil, water shortages, resource wars, widespread famine, and economic collapse, are all possible, even likely, if the world population increases unchecked. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Maybe global warming will solve those problems. Maybe the earth will warm up enough that we can grow sugarcane in the midwest and grain in Siberia and Canada, solving our energy and food problems. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>At best, that would only postpone the problem for a short period. More likely, many agricultural areas would turn into desert. Also, we depend on hydrocarbon resources for producing that fertilizer that the majority of our agriculture requires. At some point our energy expenditure exceeds what we can pump out of the ground. If population growth continues unchecked, we will be headed for serious problems. The only long-term solution is sustainable (i.e., non-hydrocarbon) energy production and food production which does not require hydrocarbon-derived fertilizers. There are some who believe that would be possible only with a significantly smaller human population than we have at present. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>or perhaps more plausibly, we could invest in solar and nuclear technologies. Solar cells, advanced organic chemistry, and fusion power (in 50-80 yrs) could provide a replacement for the current hydrocarbon economy. Existing solar technology could provide a huge fraction of our power needs if it were more economical to manufacture. Combined with PHEV and fuel cells, solar could supply our transit energy needs as well. Combined with advanced chemical synthesis techniques, solar could even supplant our need for crude components in plastics and fertilizers (though at a higher cost). Alternatively, genetic engineering of plants can produce strains that will grow many of the hydrocarbon compounds needed in industrial chemistry.<br><br>The key is for the exponential pace of technological innovation to outpace the exponential pace of human population growth. So far this has happened. Efficient large scale farming has produced more food per acre, and more per person. On the whole we have far more food, clothing and shelter than ever before. It makes me more than a little bit nervous that there are no real controls or feedbacks that secure technology's lead over population. If population were to outstrip technology, really bad things would happen (starvation, war, etc). Still, barring some sort of apocolyptic scenario, technology will likely outpace population for the forseeable future. What happens after that is anybody's guess.

 

[IFeelFree]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DDopson:<BR>or perhaps more plausibly, we could invest in solar and nuclear technologies. Solar cells, advanced organic chemistry, and fusion power (in 50-80 yrs) could provide a replacement for the current hydrocarbon economy. Existing solar technology could provide a huge fraction of our power needs if it were more economical to manufacture. Combined with PHEV and fuel cells, solar could supply our transit energy needs as well. Combined with advanced chemical synthesis techniques, solar could even supplant our need for crude components in plastics and fertilizers (though at a higher cost). Alternatively, genetic engineering of plants can produce strains that will grow many of the hydrocarbon compounds needed in industrial chemistry.<BR><BR>The key is for the exponential pace of technological innovation to outpace the exponential pace of human population growth. So far this has happened. Efficient large scale farming has produced more food per acre, and more per person. On the whole we have far more food, clothing and shelter than ever before. It makes me more than a little bit nervous that there are no real controls or feedbacks that secure technology's lead over population. If population were to outstrip technology, really bad things would happen (starvation, war, etc). Still, barring some sort of apocolyptic scenario, technology will likely outpace population for the forseeable future. What happens after that is anybody's guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Ah yes, the "technology will solve everything" scenario. The prospects for commercial fusion energy production in the near future are not good. Under the most optimistic assumptions, the first commercial fusion energy plant will come online in 2048. (There are many scientists who doubt that it will ever be feasible.) Fission power is available now and does not contribute as much to global warming (except that hydrocarbon are burned to mine and transport the uranium ore.) If fission is ramped up to between 16% - 50% of world energy production, we'll have enough uranium to last about 50 years. Thorium-based reactors might buy some more time, but are also not sustainable long term. There are also nuclear waste disposal and nuclear weapons proliferation issues. Wind and solar are (theoretically) sustainable. At present, however, our transportation needs abundant, cheap liquid fuels, without which our economy would collapse overnight. We could gradually convert to electric or hydrogen vehicles (except for air travel) but the cost for the infrastructure change is huge. It might be possible to do all of this before oil and natural gas production peaks and begins declining, but we are rapidly running out of time. Some scientists believe we are already at, or very close to, peak oil production. We need to ramp up production of solar and wind production instead of wasting many billions of dollars protecting our dwindling oil resources in the Middle East.<BR><BR>However, all of this is academic if you are advocating "the exponential pace of technological innovation to outpace the exponential pace of human population growth". The amount of carbon in the biosphere is finite. We simply cannot increase population exponentially without bound. There are physical limits. The only long-term solution is a stable population level that is constrained by sustainable energy and food production. The tremendous growth in population and technology that we've witnessed over the past century or so, was made possible by using the vast energy stored in fossil fuels accumulated over millions of years. When that resource runs out we hit a wall, unless we can transition to a sustainable future. Exponential growth in population simply cannot be sustained. If we don't address this problem there will any number of catastrophes, including war, starvation, economic collapse, etc. It could be argued that we're already starting to see some early signs of this problem with global warming, war in Iraq, rising energy and commodity prices, sporadic energy shortages and power blackouts, famine and genocide in Africa, hurricane Katrina, etc.

 

[Cretion]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by prndll:<BR>edgar:<BR>metaphysical?<BR>Do you not see that solar movement is larger than man? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>When the hell did the conversation get to solar movements? I thought this was about Earth's climate system. As edgar says, no one's saying that humans will destroy Earth, and what would that mean anyway? As a spherical mass of mostly inanimate stuff circling a burning ball of gas, how does one destroy Earth in its non-living form?<BR><BR>The argument for mitigating climate change, especially the parts influenced by us as supported by decades of science from climatologists around the world, the argument is that it is in our economic and social interest to continue with a relatively stable Earth. Changes in the climate that force billions of people to flee the coast lines or other regions is what's easily called bad. If you persist in your desire to ignore leading organizations such as NOAA by giving your uneducated 'what about', 'what if' guesses, then there isn't much modern society can do. Just as the common cold evolves preventing any kind of silver bullet cure, so does our understanding our world and our climate, but that doesn't mean you should just ignore what we know now, which is much more than you understand, even if it isn't a complete picture, not that it ever will be.

 

[Lagrange]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr. Jay:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lagrange:<br>I was thinking of 10s-100s MYrs when considering the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature but obviously the short term relationship is fairly well correlated.<br><br>800 KYrs - Baahhh, you need to start thinking of the long term. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Yeah, it's clear that the most relevant comparison for current conditions involves comparing them to other conditions within the time that the earth's been in a regular glacial cycle. But it's also important to note that the glacial cycle appears to be a relatively recent occurrence in the grand scheme of the 4.5 billion years worth of earth history. Examining earlier climate data can be informative, but it's not clear how much something like the PETM can tell us about what to expect temperature-wise. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Thanks for the info about the PETM - I hadn't heard of that before but then climate isn't my speciality. It's a stark warning of the problems that could occur with a sudden warming event even if we can't be sure of how relevent it is to our current situation.<br><br>Still, look on the bright side - at least it's not Snowball Earth! A mass extinction of so much marine and mammal life might give the penguins the chance to fill the niche currently held by whales. Who wouldn't be interested in seeing that?!<br><br>IFeelIFree:<br><br> <blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If fission is ramped up to between 16% - 50% of world energy production, we'll have enough uranium to last about 50 years. Thorium-based reactors might buy some more time, but are also not sustainable long term. There are also nuclear waste disposal and nuclear weapons proliferation issues. </div>
</blockquote> <br><br>That limit is only the case if you restrict your estimate to U235 alone which is about as sensible as only considering anthracite when estimating coal reserves. Add in U238 and you would increase that to well over 5,000 years and thorium deposits give you another threefold gain in available fuel. Sure, it's not an unlimited supply but it gives us one hell of a long time to find something better.<br><br>Proliferation isn't particularly relevent. Nations that want to develop nuclear weapons can do so without needing a massive increase in reactor numbers and there is only so many times you can wipe out humanity.<br><br>As for your worries about endless population growth, Malthus is becoming less relevent as time goes on. Most countries on Earth are showing declining population growth rates (particularly when you factor out immigration) with the biggest drops occurring in those nations with the fastest growth. Modern estimates point to World population peaking at somewhere around 9 billion between 2050 and 2075 to be followed by a slow decline.<br><br>In the meantime start lobbying your airline to switch to non-carbon fuels such as pentaborane. They've known about them since the 1950s so why aren't they being used??? It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

 

[IFeelFree]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lagrange:<BR>That limit is only the case if you restrict your estimate to U235 alone which is about as sensible as only considering anthracite when estimating coal reserves. Add in U238 and you would increase that to well over 5,000 years and thorium deposits give you another threefold gain in available fuel. Sure, it's not an unlimited supply but it gives us one hell of a long time to find something better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Except that with U238 and thorium you need a fast breeder reactor. The cost is much higher and the ones that have been built have been plagued with problems. That's why Japan, originally enthusiastic about this approach, has put its fast breeder reactor program on the back burner. Then there's the waste problem. (Transmutation of high level waste is a dead-end).<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Proliferation isn't particularly relevent. Nations that want to develop nuclear weapons can do so without needing a massive increase in reactor numbers and there is only so many times you can wipe out humanity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>What about countries (or terrorist groups) that don't yet have highly-enriched uranium or plutonium? We've already seen Pakistan and North Korea develop nuclear weapons, and now it looks as if Iran will have be able to make them before long. Widespread use of fast breeder reactors would provide lots of plutonium for nuclear weapons. It's not the big nations I'm worried about, it's smaller rogue nations and terrorist groups.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for your worries about endless population growth, Malthus is becoming less relevent as time goes on. Most countries on Earth are showing declining population growth rates (particularly when you factor out immigration) with the biggest drops occurring in those nations with the fastest growth. Modern estimates point to World population peaking at somewhere around 9 billion between 2050 and 2075 to be followed by a slow decline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Which is why I expressed hope regarding falling fertility rates in my original post. However, many question whether the earth can sustain a population of 9 billion, given already tight food supplies and rising energy costs. For your utopia to be correct, we'd have to have a leveling off of the population, along with continued cheap energy and adequate food supplies. Placing your hope for cheap energy on fast breeder reactors is a big leap of faith not supported by our current experience. In any case, the U.S. is not building any nuclear power plants so we've got a big problem if oil supplies decline. There is no easy solution to our transportation problem without cheap oil.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the meantime start lobbying your airline to switch to non-carbon fuels such as pentaborane. They've known about them since the 1950s so why aren't they being used??? It's a conspiracy I tells ya! </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Pentaborane is nasty stuff. It's highly toxic and bursts into flame on contact with air. Also, it is costly compared to conventional jet fuel, and it produces toxic exhaust.