Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The worst condition is not knowing (or acknowledging) what you don't know.

Unfortunately you appear to have it.

Don't do that. If you have nothing more to say about a claim I made, don't just say I don't know what I'm talking about. I explained it and you just don't like the idea that there are limits to how much energy can be sustainably used in the biosphere even if CO2 emissions are reduced.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

The remark about Florida was wry humor--although there are a lot of people in the states who would not miss it. But I think you underestimate the rate of rise of sea level, as the Antarctic ice shelves begin to calve, and the Greenland glaciers melt. You and I, however, probably won't be around to see the show.

The 1/8 inch/year rate I cited is the estimated current rate, significant changes in land based (only) glacial ice would indeed increase it as you indicate.

Are you accounting for increased weathering and erosion that will accelerate the flow of debris from land into the oceans as average temperatures and thus average precipitation increases?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Atmospheric CO2 levels rising is an indicator that the planet isn't healing from our industrial uses of it as fast as we are using up those resources.

Yes, you've already stated this. I asked you to provide the data that backs this up. Do you have it, or not?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Livinglava is a pedantic master of the trivial non sequitur,

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Atmospheric CO2 levels rising is an indicator that the planet isn't healing from our industrial uses of it as fast as we are using up those resources.

Yes, you've already stated this. I asked you to provide the data that backs this up. Do you have it, or not?

Don't you read about rising CO2 levels constantly in the news? Are you implying that those are all fake news?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Don't you read about rising CO2 levels constantly in the news?

Is this your answer to my request that you provide the data that backs up your claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Don't you read about rising CO2 levels constantly in the news?

Is this your answer to my request that you provide the data that backs up your claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly?

What exactly are you asking about? Rising CO2 levels or my claim that pre-industrial CO2 levels are needed for the planet to function correctly?

If your questioning whether pre-industrial CO2 levels need to return, here's the logic:

The planet functioned sustainably for huge amounts of time before humans showed up and began manipulating the lands and ecosystems. During all that time, CO2 levels fluctuated.

It is logical, therefore, that if humans are causing CO2 levels to fluctuate in quantities that are without precedent in pre-industrial/pre-human times, then we're doing something wrong.

Is that too speculative for you? What 'data' would you expect to be available that would 'prove' this right or wrong? Do you think there's a way to prove that artificially high CO2 levels are sustainable? Many people model various scenarios, but ultimately only time will tell and the question is how far do we want to risk adventuring into our artificial, industrial version of planet Earth before backing off and letting nature restore itself?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

What exactly are you asking about? Rising CO2 levels or my claim that pre-industrial CO2 levels are needed for the planet to function correctly?

I'm not asking about anything. I'm asking you to provide the data that backs up your claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly? Do you have that data?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
What exactly are you asking about? Rising CO2 levels or my claim that pre-industrial CO2 levels are needed for the planet to function correctly?

I'm not asking about anything. I'm asking you to provide the data that backs up your claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly? Do you have that data?

Do you have data to prove that your thinking and argumentation are sound?

Don't try thinking about whether this is a valid question or not. Just answer yes or no.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Do you have data to prove that your thinking and argumentation are sound?

You made the claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly. So can you provide the data that backs up that claim? This is a valid question, in light of your claim. Do you have the data?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Do you have data to prove that your thinking and argumentation are sound?

You made the claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly. So can you provide the data that backs up that claim? This is a valid question, in light of your claim. Do you have the data?

I think you are confused. You are assuming that pre-industrial CO2 levels were always completely below what has occurred since the industrial revolution.

That might not be the case. It may well be that there were periods in the distant past when CO2 levels were comparable to those today. It may be that the biosphere had more time to adapt to a more gradual change and/or that it took a long time for that atmospheric CO2 to get re-absorbed into the ground.

Anyway, the point is that we can compare today's land-use and energy use with that of pre-industrial times and if they were more-or-less equivalent, we would know that the climate would fluctuate in natural ways.

Do you not understand how simple what I am saying is? I am just saying that a natural planet means a natural climate. When we start altering the planet's bio-geological feedback loops, we know that is going to change the climate because the climate is due to interaction between what goes on biologically/ecologically/geologically and the energy that is naturally interacting to create the climate.

Why are you disputing this? Is your point that there may be reason to believe whatever we change about the carbon/energy cycle of the planet and however we change what grows and lives on land, how the winds are used, how the nuclear fuels are used, etc. will not effect the overall climate and long-term sustainability of planetary resource cycles and their ability to replenish resources for the rest of the planet's future?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Why are you disputing this?

I'm not disputing that climate changes. I'm asking you to provide some date that proves your claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly. This is a simple request, but you are not responding to it. This makes me think that your claim is not based on any data.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Why are you disputing this?

I'm not disputing that climate changes. I'm asking you to provide some date that proves your claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly. This is a simple request, but you are not responding to it. This makes me think that your claim is not based on any data.

It's just an obvious premise to secure the climate against changing.

I could also claim that we only have to go back to certain levels, which are still higher than before industrialism, and use data to support my claim, but that would just be an elaborate way of making a case for a purported claim.

Let me try to be more concrete by using more specific examples:

If all humans died off and some other species about the same size and calorie needs as we have flourished but didn't generate energy from fossil fuel, nuclear fuel, etc.; then can we agree that the climate would follow natural patterns?

Now if that species would learn to build buildings, but they did so between trees and didn't alter the ecology/biology of the land from its natural state, would that facilitate a natural climate?

Now if that species paved paths through the forests and walked and rode bicycles through them, would that alter the natural climate?

Now if they built solar panels and windmills for electricity and built small electronic devices, would that alter the natural climate?

Now if they started mining up huge amounts of metals and crude oil and other fuels and used the energy to go around clearing land and paving corridors so reforestation was blocked from occurring, and they kept burning fuel not just to build and make things but to transport themselves at high speed around the various continents, and they drove in personal motor-vehicles everywhere requiring wide paved multilane corridors and parking lots, shipped goods and agriculture products across the oceans, etc. etc., would that alter that natural climate?

You can come up with your own examples of what would and wouldn't work within the margins of a natural climate scenario. It doesn't require going back in time, only modifying the way modern technologies are used so that they are sustainable and help restore the land to a state that serves the natural climate as it did before industrialism.

1 Reply

The climate is changing, and it will change no matter what humanity does or doesn't do. George and I have been discussing this, and the evidence for the cyclical nature of climate fluctuations. But you live in your own little bubble, don't you? You don't read what others post unless they dispute you. I almost never agree with Glennnn, but I agree that you need to back up your claims.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The climate is changing, and it will change no matter what humanity does or doesn't do. George and I have been discussing this, and the evidence for the cyclical nature of climate fluctuations. But you live in your own little bubble, don't you? You don't read what others post unless they dispute you. I almost never agree with Glennnn, but I agree that you need to back up your claims.

I don't have to live in 'my own little bubble' to know that humans can live happily with much less industrial economic activity. Most of what is produced and shipped is done so for the sake of securing supply-chains and ensuring competitive investment returns, not because people can't do without it or because there aren't other, less energy-intensive ways of achieving the same things.

The problem is that too many people indeed 'live in the bubble' created by their little economic burrow that they covet and protect. If they would really reflect on what they actually need to live happily, they would find that it doesn't take that much.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Total, typical LL babble-speak.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's just an obvious premise to secure the climate against changing.

Hmm. I'm asking you for the data that proves your claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
It's just an obvious premise to secure the climate against changing.

Hmm. I'm asking you for the data that proves your claim that we have to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 for the planet to function correctly.

What kind of data? The data is all around you. Every developed piece of land you see is stripped of living carbon-absorbing trees, plants, and animals. All the machines you see are burning fossil fuel.

The carbon cycle is actually very similar to the water cycle. Water rains down and fills up underground aquifers. Likewise, carbon gets absorbed by trees, plants, and animals and gradually builds up concentrated underground reserves, like ground water except it is carbon-based fossil fuels.

If you use groundwater faster than rain replenishes it, you'll have drought. Likewise, if you use fossil fuel faster than they are replenished, you'll have rising atmospheric CO2 levels and the climate problems that come with that.

What more data do you want?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

What kind of data?

You can start with the data that shows the damage that will occur from whatever you believe is going to happen.

In the meantime, here is some perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2u_TIWPupw

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

The carbon cycle is actually very similar to the water cycle. Water rains down and fills up underground aquifers. Likewise, carbon gets absorbed by trees, plants, and animals and gradually builds up concentrated underground reserves, like ground water except it is carbon-based fossil fuels.

Yet another shallow and incorrect interpretation of basic facts. The carbon cycle is profoundly different from the water cycle in that CO2 absorbed by the oceans as carbonic acid later combines with dissolved calcium to form limestone where it is sequestered.

1 Reply

Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know