tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1417252035150722654..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Bunnies have a reputationEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90244638334470927602009-12-03T21:38:50.354-05:002009-12-03T21:38:50.354-05:00I know this is the wrong topic, but
http://74.12...I know this is the wrong topic, but <br /><br />http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:12y9TN4AzwsJ:scholar.google.com/+/0707/0707.1161v4&hl=en&as_sdt=2000<br /><br />THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT<br />DOES EXIST!<br /><br />Commentary on the paper:<br />Falsification Of<br />The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects<br />Within The Frame Of Physics <br /><br />Dipl.-physicist Jochen Ebel<br />23. November 2009<br /><br />arXiv:0911.3735v1 [physics.ao-ph] 19 Nov 2009Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30723859802404780762009-11-29T05:49:52.412-05:002009-11-29T05:49:52.412-05:00Douglas, you are ignoring the obvious here. One, t...Douglas, you are ignoring the obvious here. One, the examples you cite aren't of a magnitude to be of much use. The pop changes are too small. That's obviously not what I am getting at. Second, Jevon's comes into play. We have seen it since 1979 and will see it again. And it doesn't matter if emissions and population lower in the OECD, or NA, or Europe if they go up globally.<br /><br />Yes, it may be true that we may sui-genocide ourselves into lower emissions, but isn't that what the conversation is trying to avoid?<br /><br />Any solutions now, and any future paradigm that is shifted to, that doesn't deal with population is doomed to ultimate failure. Theremay be exceptions in shorter term plans that are really just bridge solutions, but over longer time spans, humans have got to find a way to deal with this or we will never get close to a steady state economy and will continue to boom and bust like the rest of Nature. And, yes, I recognize that that may just be the way of things.<br /><br />Cheersccpohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02608765517662755393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32386924497270666522009-11-28T03:28:04.362-05:002009-11-28T03:28:04.362-05:00This false logic that more people doesn't equa...<i>This false logic that more people doesn't equal more emissions is bunk.</i><br /><br />Not really. If childless adults in the U.S. exponentially increase their CO2 output due to consumerism and lifestyle choices that emit vast amounts of CO2 (jetting hither and yon, driving multiple vehicles that get 8 mpg), you can have increased CO2 even with negative population growth in that specific country or region. Is CO2 output decreasing or increasing in countries with flat or negative population growth? I believe it is increasing. This shows that even flat or negative population growth in a region can still result in great increases in CO2 output in that region.<br /><br />What is clear to me is that AGW is going to reduce and constrain population carrying capacity, e.g. if the Himalayan glaciers melt, or the monsoons become sporadic, or critical marine nursery areas (salt marshes) collapse due to rapid sea level rise. In this context, rapid population growth will run smack head-on into a wall of falling carrying capacity due to AGW and massive suffering will result. In this respect, I agree fully with Eli.Douglas Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06686351092076044875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24775198325690413942009-11-28T03:06:45.488-05:002009-11-28T03:06:45.488-05:00Douglas Watts is a nincompoop.
Yes, at times. And...<i>Douglas Watts is a nincompoop.</i><br /><br />Yes, at times. And I accept the admonition. My point is only that if we are looking solely at carbon footprint, a wealthy couple in the U.S. with no children spews a lot more C02 in the atmosphere than a large Tuareg family in the Sahel. <br /><br />I accept fully Eli's concerns about rapidly increased population on deforestation, etc. with the caveat that a lot of deforestation is due to land clearing for things we in the West like to consume, like gold or paper or lumber etc.Douglas Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06686351092076044875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89243379422521846872009-11-25T10:37:39.456-05:002009-11-25T10:37:39.456-05:00I had no idea that women were lectured about their...I had no idea that women were lectured about their land-use footprint. Boy, them furriners sure is strange.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55610502337525727662009-11-25T00:17:25.905-05:002009-11-25T00:17:25.905-05:00Dear Reverend,
Sorry, but his words spoke for him...Dear Reverend,<br /><br />Sorry, but his words spoke for himself. If there is an error it is his for writing "blaming" as if population were an animate thing.<br /><br />This false logic that more people doesn't equal more emissions is bunk. Yes, it might be theoretically possible for every human born henceforth to be disposed to consume carbon at a negative rate, it just isn't very intelligent to assume it to be so.<br /><br />Cheersccpohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02608765517662755393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91219242251588419402009-11-24T10:17:04.978-05:002009-11-24T10:17:04.978-05:00But must those land use changes scale with populat...But must those land use changes scale with population? And in any case, what would coupling the issues do to efforts to promote family planning? Not much of anything, I'd say. <br /><br />As it is, women already want to have fewer children than they actually do (see the Economist article). They need access to contraception. Let's provide them with that, not lectures about land use changes.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62299331251675152722009-11-23T18:17:03.999-05:002009-11-23T18:17:03.999-05:00The Economist thing is one of those that has the ...The Economist thing is one of those that has the undertone of making some happy. <br /><br />The underling issue is what EO Wilson said when asked what was the carrying capacity of the Earth:<br /><br />"If we consume like Japan and the US, 200 million."<br /><br />Thus the I = P x A x T.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08191155460701692880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16219869299245799782009-11-23T15:10:09.610-05:002009-11-23T15:10:09.610-05:00Another perspective from The Economist:
http://www...Another perspective from The Economist:<br />http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589the_heat_is_onhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13506787236855540288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75852951106370396102009-11-23T13:30:29.846-05:002009-11-23T13:30:29.846-05:00Eli agrees too. The insight here, if there is one...Eli agrees too. The insight here, if there is one, is that population growth has both an immediate and a delayed forcing, which at Rabett Run we call the bunny factor.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34049116387041426262009-11-23T12:05:55.644-05:002009-11-23T12:05:55.644-05:00Land use is strongly scalar for many components, i...Land use is strongly scalar for many components, including albedo. But IMHO there is no doubt that LU has been a driver, and I've agreed with RP Sr over that and only a couple other issues for some time now. Most of his implicit denialism/delayer, no. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36170100794670706632009-11-23T12:03:13.544-05:002009-11-23T12:03:13.544-05:00Tenney,
There is only so much time in the day, an...Tenney,<br /><br />There is only so much time in the day, and I just can't visit that site any more. Sorry. Too aggravating on the blood pressure.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70747930410720973532009-11-23T10:33:02.034-05:002009-11-23T10:33:02.034-05:00ccpo: speaking as a regular lurker, I think you ha...ccpo: speaking as a regular lurker, I think you have misinterpreted the good Douglass (not Anthony) Watts just a tiny little bit. But I would forgive you because you used the word "nincompoop". <br /><br />Scuttling back to my hole now.<br /><br />The Reverend Thigh Bone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76541667526373238972009-11-23T09:02:27.070-05:002009-11-23T09:02:27.070-05:00You should speak to Roger Sr. There is no doubt t...You should speak to Roger Sr. There is no doubt that land use has changed albedo over the last 200 years, starting with the European migration to the Americas and Australia, the settlement of Siberia which is on going, changes to tropical rain forests and more. This also appears to be a one way valve in many cases (although Eastern NA has been reforested to a degree). It is significant, maybe not as much as the ghg increase, but significant.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45974914255332510612009-11-23T00:43:30.068-05:002009-11-23T00:43:30.068-05:00Oh, you're worried about surface albedo change...Oh, you're worried about surface albedo changes? Is that really something worth getting bent out of shape for? Looks like a minor forcing to me. Doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough reason or linkage to start conflating population policy with climate change. <br /><br />Fertility is coming down as it is. Access to family planning should be increased for its own right. The first and second order benefits of that are good enough; no particular need to add a tenuous fourth order one.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63577587569756810742009-11-23T00:32:49.447-05:002009-11-23T00:32:49.447-05:00I'm unsure that land use changes (in a climate...I'm unsure that land use changes (in a climate-relevant way) necessarily have to scale with global population. Deforestation in Brazil or Indonesia can be addressed without making any additional effort to reduce fertility. Methane emissions associated with land use changes or agriculture might be a tad trickier.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91997417492993518302009-11-23T00:00:53.912-05:002009-11-23T00:00:53.912-05:00CR, you forgot about land use.CR, you forgot about land use.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44212207041228328262009-11-22T23:28:04.633-05:002009-11-22T23:28:04.633-05:00Douglas Watts is a nincompoop. If this is the same...Douglas Watts is a nincompoop. If this is the same Watts at WUWT, no surpise, eh? If not the same, my apologies, but you're still a nincompoop.<br /><br />Every sustainable society I've ever read of used active population control. To pretend this is immoral shows only that you have no morality, for you judge others by your standard rather than the internal logic of their own values.<br /><br />Further, if you don't understand that some resources are absolutely finite, and that at some point they *must* logically deplete, then you are not very bright. You can test this by locking yourself in your house, not going out, not having anything delivered, but keeping your bills paid, and seeing how it goes. (Hint: food will run out, water will not. Get it?)<br /><br />Increasing population speeds up this process. <br /><br />To take this further, i.e. pretend quite foolishly resources cannot be depleted, even if they are, they still replenish at given rates depending on the mix of variables. Animal populations, for example, show a very wide range of populations because population eventually outstrips resource replenshment, animals starve/go thirsty/what have you, and population drops. The reduced resource replenishes and population rises again. And so on and so on. (I have one child and plan to keep it that way. OH MY GOD! HOW HORRIBLE!!!)<br /><br />Population matters. If you don't control that, you WILL have massive die off at some point. Period.<br /><br />Better to encourage one child or better to watch millions/billions die in chaos?ccpohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02608765517662755393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8393183789212120502009-11-22T22:27:15.751-05:002009-11-22T22:27:15.751-05:00Eh. Fertility rates come down with wealth and dev...Eh. Fertility rates come down with wealth and development; per capita emissions go up. What to make of it? I agree with a Pielke, for once. The issues are related, but I don't think there's anything to be gained by linking them, policy-wise.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47440193632848556212009-11-22T21:17:35.983-05:002009-11-22T21:17:35.983-05:00WTF is DEWTF is DEEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40446989960112398622009-11-22T18:39:59.595-05:002009-11-22T18:39:59.595-05:00dano,
please, would you slap some sense into the ...dano,<br /><br />please, would you slap some sense into the discussion over at DE? I know it is onerous and odious work, but some fresh air is required for the rest of us.<br /><br />Tenney Naumer<br />Vitória da Conquista, Bahia, BrazilClimate Tuva or Busthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03614548041790042506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66257092877814348672009-11-22T11:40:24.768-05:002009-11-22T11:40:24.768-05:00We are back to:
I = P x A x T
Best,
D
Word ver...We are back to:<br /><br /><b>I = P x A x T</b><br /><br />Best,<br /><br />D<br /><br />Word verif agrees: 'queryo'Danohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60089328881677305212009-11-22T09:54:06.879-05:002009-11-22T09:54:06.879-05:00The point is that there are two effects on climate...The point is that there are two effects on climate forcing (notice the use of climate rather than emissions). Population has a direct effect on land use, which changes albedo, as well as indirectly affecting emissions. That is independent of wealth.<br /><br />The second is that as the poor get richer (and they are) their emissions go up. By neglecting any one side of the equation you can get any result you want.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15107934928188172852009-11-22T03:34:19.396-05:002009-11-22T03:34:19.396-05:00GM had an interesting article on this:
http://www...GM had an interesting article on this:<br /><br />http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/skankyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14584908320777937193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1827363364379836982009-11-22T02:55:27.729-05:002009-11-22T02:55:27.729-05:00Blaming population for air pollution is like blami...Blaming population for air pollution is like blaming a poor Lakota Indian kid for forcing the guy on Long Island to buy a $1 million, 18 room McMansion and driving a $50,000 Hummer.Douglas Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06686351092076044875noreply@blogger.com