8
   

Is the world being destroyed?

 
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 11:31 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:

Do you believe that human civilization is doomed to collapse in a couple of generations because of phosphorus?

If, and only if, a shortage of phosphates develops for which we have no solution. Get out of your bubble.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 01:04 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:

Are you worried about humanity reaching "peak phosphorus" in the next say 8 years
I hve no idea qhat "peak phosphorus means. I can understand "peak petroleumbecause its a COMPPOUND that expends its energy bank when oxidiing. It produces energy and then the carbon /Hydrogen bonds are dissociate.
PHOSPHORUS remains phosphorus an chemists are smart enough to reclaim it from all knds of wast (Sewage being a real popular source)

ELEMENTS (not the radioactive ones) remain the same.
Its like scrap steel or iron, we can use it over and over, its motly an element (Elemenst are indivisible said Aristotle-he knew a bit of stuff even back then)
You were poo pooing Paul Whrlich (The ecologist not the medical man ).

His books have all been pretty much read with interest and agreed with by a bulk of scientists.
EVEN DARWIN had made some dumass statements in his "Orin of Species..."

Im not sure the entire planet will be depopulated but I dont think that major disasters will not happen under humanity"s watch.

What is the carrying capacity of our planet?? Lotsa guesses noone relly knows.

As you assert that this is all some Progressive whineathon. Id say that much of the Conservative herd is ANTI science and misses much of the point. M King Hubbert came up with the term "Peak petroleum" thaat still is true, its jut that weve been able to push back the dates via new drilling and processing technologies. (fracking, Tertiary Recovery, wet gas/dry gas etc etc).

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 01:24 pm
@hightor,
Thanks, I sorta disagree that compounds and elements are weighed in the same pan. Elements can be limiting if we over commit them (like neodymium magnets we will run out of magnets using Ne and will have to use somethoing else. But from the artidle you posted, I think they posted a complex biological or chemical compound that changes composition when its energy bank is used up.

On the other hand, we can now generate petrol like products by esterifying algae **** in other wors, we can create Diesel fule of many dense energy levels by treating algae fatty acids with a dry alcohol (all of which are compounds.
We dont call petroleum "fossil fuel" for nothing.

I do agree with your take on Ehrlichs books.My first course in Evolution was by he and his wife. (she aalways got the raw deal in notariety). I like his Population Bomb _A, perhaps denser but more to the point book by the Ehrlichs is EXTINCTION-the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species.

resources, like trees andwater, and petroleum are limited and can be 'mined out' (water would probably take something beyond mere human futzing). Anything like elements naaah. I dont see that happening ever well probably be mining Helium3 from the moon
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 02:22 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
resources, like trees andwater, and petroleum are limited and can be 'mined out' (water would probably take something beyond mere human futzing).

I know that the water cycle replenishes fresh water through evaporation over the oceans which later condenses and rains on the continents. But I really hate to see the quantity of fresh water used in fracking, millions of gallons per well, much of it chemically contaminated and pumped deep underground, effectively removed from the natural water cycle. Plus it represents a pollution danger as well.

Quote:
There are many pathways to pollution from fracking. After the well is fracked and starts producing oil and gas, much of the fracking fluid remains underground where it could potentially contaminate groundwater if fractures connect to aquifer systems. There is some evidence that shallow aquifers have been polluted by methane either due to poorly constructed production wells, “communication” between production wells and drinking water wells, or both.

After the fracturing process, a percentage of the water returns fairly quickly to the surface as wastewater, also called “flowback.” The briny water that has long been underground and comes up during continued operation of the well, called “produced water,” can contain naturally occurring contaminants like the radioactive element radium, along with other heavy metals and salts. All of this wastewater is toxic and must be collected and stored; it then must be treated or discharged – or reinjected into a deep disposal well.

The wastewater is often pumped into holding ponds where it can leak and settle into surrounding groundwater, and impact wildlife. The contamination of groundwater is of major concern for those who live near drilling operations and rely on drinking water wells. And the contamination of watersheds that provide drinking water for millions of people in cities hundreds of miles away from any natural gas drilling sites poses a significant threat as well.

The US EPA’s “Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources” is the most comprehensive study to date on fracking. While the EPA claimed that fracking does not necessarily lead to “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution, they did for the first time confirm that groundwater has been polluted at points along the fracking “water cycle.” The report also includes a major caveat that “[t]here is a high degree of uncertainty about whether the relatively few instances of impacts noted in this report are the result of a rarity of effects or a lack of data.”

Federal and state responses to the threats to water resources posed by fracking have been mixed at best. At the federal level, regulation is insufficient due to certain explicit exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act granted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

watercalculator
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 02:24 pm
Max's whole argument is a political judgment. No matter what case he builds it is all politics with him. He just wants to own the libs.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 02:34 pm
@edgarblythe,
Exactly, he’s so far down the rabbit hole that he’s complaining about terminology only he is using.

Windmills, straw men and accusing everyone else of being extreme.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 02:47 pm
@edgarblythe,
I find him even more exasperating than oralloy. I think it's the self-aggrandizing claim, constantly belied, of ideological neutrality. He views political labels as accurately prescriptive when in reality they are only crudely descriptive.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 02:56 pm
@farmerman,
I don't think you really believe this nonsense, farmerman. Let's be clear about what we are arguing.

They are claiming that phosphorus will reach a peak in the next 10 years and after that price rises will lead to a collapse of civilization.

They are claiming that global GDP is about to fall.

They are claiming that human civilization can't last more than a "few generations".

These are extreme claims. They aren't backed by science. I don't mind the personal attacks the facts speak for themselves.

Just to be clear I support intelligent responses to the problems we're facing today. This includes a robust response to global climate change and support for conservation efforts.

There is a difference between advocating for reasonable science-based policies and pushing alarmist conspiracy theories about the imminent demise of the human race.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 05:39 pm
@maxdancona,
I think I clerly stated that P wont be "shorted", ITS AN ELEMENT and subject to laws of conservation . P is mined primarily as a Xline mineral called Apatite. Apatite, is made up of skeletal material . There are others like Svabite but Apatite has the largest PO4 constituents.
We wont run out of it, we can mine P from sewage if need be. Florida produces most of the PO4 in the US and we could always use chicken **** to fertiluze crops. Lotsa P/K/N in chicken ****.

As for Ehrlich and his wife ( I believe she shoulda got equal credit for thir wrks). The"Bomb" hs some mistakes but its mostly some great ideas.
Like Darwin never knew about genetics so his "transmutational inheriance" responsible for what we call evolution, his idea woul run out of steam in about 6 generations . However genes dont work the way Darwin said transmutation ould. A2% genetic expression is just as important as a higher % its just not as widely included in the populations gene makeup.

Ehrlich's books are safe in the libraries of science. The fact he was a racist is discouraging but his science was mostly sound. (It been a while since I read the 2 books on the ...BOMB and the... BOMB REVISITED. I dont remember them pinpointing running out of elements.
remember, weve only mined earths surface. Weve mined to a depth that would be less topography than our own fingerprints on pur hands. Sooner or later we will make the move the Russians did to extract Cu and some stategic Minerals fro Depths of 3 miles. Right now, we dont need to.

I believe Ehrlich looked at physical and compound makeups that are in danger (However evn forest products have become more sustainable.Think about how they slashed the pines off the Hills of New England and New York and PA, till Gifford Pinchot came along and made up the rules for more sustainable "development"



maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 06:42 pm
@farmerman,
You and I are in agreement, Farmerman.

Ehrlich was racist, and he made alarmist predictions that were clearly wrong starting with predicting mass starvation that would take place in the 1970s. He kept doubling down and kept being proven wrong in his predictions. His alarmist and discredited predictions of doom are the reason he is being discusswd here.

You agree with me on the science of phosphorus. You havent said you beilieve that human society is doomed to collapse in a couple of generations.


I think we are in agreement. I think you dont like my tone and thats fine. I am reacting to what I see as a ridiculous and alarmist ideological narrative
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 06:05 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
They are claiming that phosphorus will reach a peak in the next 10 years and after that price rises will lead to a collapse of civilization.

Who is this "they" you speak of? There have been warnings about the finite supply of easily extractable phosphates for some time now. You yourself have said how important chemical fertilizers are in modern agriculture. Instead of flying off the handle, why not simply explain where new sources of phosphates may be found at a cost which can economically replace the sources we rely on now?
Quote:
They are claiming that global GDP is about to fall.

No, no one is claiming that. The prediction was made that, if certain trends continue, increased prices will lead to economic downturns. These are predictions, based on the nature of capitalist economies. They aren't laws determining future behavior.
Quote:

They are claiming that human civilization can't last more than a "few generations".

If the world food supply is affected, people will be affected. "People" = "civilization", get it? We don't know what will happen in the span of a hundred years.
Quote:
These are extreme claims.

Duh...yes, modern civilization is built on a rather fragile network and disruption to any system could have extreme consequences.
Quote:
They aren't backed by science.

They're based in science. And the economic implications which result. Clugston supplies the numbers. As far as I know, scientific critiques of his work haven't been carried out. But they could be, and probably will be. If his figures don't add up, if declining supplies of NNRs don't affect the economy, or if they're not declining at all, science will have proven him wrong. Ideally, science is self-correcting. As Clugston's findings are sourced, it shouldn't be difficult to prove him wrong, unlike trying to argue the existence of non-existence of an afterlife.

By the way, I don't understand your dismissal of "non-renewable natural resources" as a term. Did you even do a search? Here's the beginning of the wikipedia article:
Quote:
A non-renewable resource (also called a finite resource) is a natural resource that cannot be readily replaced by natural means at a pace quick enough to keep up with consumption.[1] An example is carbon-based fossil fuels. The original organic matter, with the aid of heat and pressure, becomes a fuel such as oil or gas. Earth minerals and metal ores, fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas) and groundwater in certain aquifers are all considered non-renewable resources, though individual elements are always conserved (except in nuclear reactions).


Quote:
There is a difference between advocating for reasonable science-based policies and pushing alarmist conspiracy theories about the imminent demise of the human race.

There's also a difference between pushing alarmist conspiracy theories about the imminent demise of the human race and compiling data about the continued availability of the resources which nurture human civilization and the implications should they grow scarce in the future.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 07:58 am
@hightor,
using phosphorus as a Shelford "minimum" is where this Clugston dude seems to hqve jumped the trck. Phosphoru in all its molecular forms can be easily captured from the very proteinaceus bodies that populate the planet.

Phosphorus is recycled very efficiently and its availability isnt presenting a problem into the future.
Like Ehrlich had made some dumb statements, that never (IMM) eliminated his observations an their overall validity.

I dont tink Max read my post in which Ehrlich doesnt feel he made predictions but observed trends. He admits he was using a megaphone to sell his book but just like the scientists at Laeitoli had observed and made trend lines, they werent always right but their conclusions were NOT WRONG, same thing with ehrlich.

farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 08:02 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
You and I are in agreement, Farmerman.
I vehemently disagree with your views on Ehrlich, I get the feeling youve not read him at all.
"Predictions"were a newspapers terminology, not his. We are still ealing with a "carrying capacity" analysis of our planet, and to dsicount that famine has not occured since the 1970;s is an attempt to do what Ehrlich did except in reverse.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 09:00 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Phosphorus is recycled very efficiently and its availability isnt presenting a problem into the future.

I'm not disputing your statement, but Clugston is hardly the only person to have mentioned a phosphate crunch.

Phosphate shortage: The dwindling resource required to grow food

Humanity Is Flushing Away One of Life’s Essential Elements

Phosphorus: Supply and Demand

And, of course there are counterarguments:

There Is No Phosphorus Shortage: Stop Designing Foolish Systems To Recycle It

Is There Really a Looming Phosphorus Shortage?

Debunking Peak Phosphorus

Given the points raised by each side, and not having the knowledge to prove or disprove the facts, I'm not going to discount Clugston's general thesis — even if he's gotten this wrong he's got a lot of company. After all, phosphates, while extremely important for agriculture, aren't the only NNRs subject to future scarcity. But if we do, in truth, have all the phosphates we need, that's one less problem to solve.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 09:11 am
@hightor,
Boulby mine in N Yorkshire is a potash mine one mile under the North Sea.

There’s been news specials on it.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 09:49 am
@izzythepush,
A regional institution here (Lippeverband) tries to find new ways of P-Recovery technologies.

Lippeverband is the lead partner of Phos4You - We deliver Phosphorus "made in Europe"
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 10:34 am
@hightor,
This Peak Potassium nonsense is just another conspiracy theory.

You start with a politically motivated belief (for example that Bush did 9/11). Then you find a whole bunch of scientific cites taken out of context about phosphate mining or how airline fuel can't burn steel. Then you find a couple of "scientists" to support your beliefs.

It is almost impossible to disprove these things, because it is starting with an ideology and a psychological need to believe. Once you have that, you can always "gather facts" to support your theory.

"Gathering facts" is not science... Science is about testing your hypothesis not about looking for a collection of carefully chosen "facts" to support your pre-existing beliefs.


oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 11:10 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
It is almost impossible to disprove these things, because it is starting with an ideology and a psychological need to believe. Once you have that, you can always "gather facts" to support your theory.

I disagree with that as you wrote it. But I think I agree with your intended point.

I think it is very easy to disprove nonsense like 9/11 conspiracy theories.

It may however be impossible to dissuade a conspiracy theorist from their beliefs.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 11:28 am
@Walter Hinteler,
USGS "Ochre" pr$) from acid mine drainage (about 25 pounds per million gal) The oceans contain about 0.6 lb of P per million gal. Somebody do the math for P per mi cu.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2021 11:30 am
@izzythepush,
I know we dont have a K shortage. Potash is K , not P
 

Related Topics

Israel Proves the Desalination Era is Here - Discussion by Robert Gentel
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
What does water taste like? - Question by Fiona368
California and its greentard/water problems - Discussion by gungasnake
Water is dry. - Discussion by izzythepush
Let's talk about... - Question by tontoiam
Water - Question by Cyracuz
Evaporation of Water - Question by gollum
What is your favorite bottled water? - Discussion by tsarstepan
water - Question by cissylxf
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 10:51:35