Post by sentient on Sept 29, 2009 2:55:43 GMT
Let's all assume for a moment, that GHG driven climate change is happening and that we really do need to take a whack at GHGs. AR4, the IPCC's best predication (or at least a pseudo-consensus thereof) is a doubling of CO2 in 300 years (correct me if my memory fails me). Let's make that 100 years, or 2100, even better.
What will population do?
In 1999 Kofi Annan, then Sec. Gen. of the UN declared we had just passed the 6 billion mark in human population. In June of 2008 Ban Ki Moon, the present Sec. Gen. of the UN declared that by 2050 we will pass the 10 billion mark.
How long will we need to reach 12 billion after that?
And what will all these people do? Will they be content to just sit around and eat? Eat what? Genetically modified crops? Will they not want to get around? Transportation et al?
If CO2 will indeed double from 0.04% to 0.08% in the same timeframe, is it even remotely possible that we may be on the wrong side of the decimal point in this discussion?
Six billion of us, just eating carbon sources and breathing generate 1 kg apiece per day, 6 billion generate 2 gigatons per year. Double population, and that goes to 4 GT per year, assuming all the extra 6 billion do is eat and breathe, using no carbon source heat or transport.
So what are we really arguing about anyway? If population control is not a central plank to AGW theory, then this just becomes a silly buggers game seven significant figures to the left of the decimal point while we argue ourselves blue in the face two decimal points to the right of the decimal point.
So what will really happen?
I read somewhere about a year or so ago that we already have about 80% of arable land under agricultural production. Will GM, with all of its questionable economic/political dimensions left un-discussed, be able to fill such a gap? Should it?
Population is the third rail of this non-discussion. And where is this population boom occurring? Italy? Germany? The U.S.? Not in terms of fecundity or natural births. Some of these nations are indeed experiencing population growth, but not through natural births. But through immigration. Immigration from where? And why?
Would it be standard of living? Hot water? Food? Jobs? What will the extra 6 billion of us do in a carbon-neutral world in 2100?
Build solar panels? Out of what? And with what energy source?
Concerned due to the mass hysteria of going from less than one tenth of one percent of CO2 in the atmosphere to an appalling STILL less than one tenth of one percent CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 (if its true), I have invested thousands of bucks in alternative power systems (i.e windmill, solar panels and the third rail of alternative energy, storage), I cannot provide on a totally spun-up basis anywhere near enough power to maintain a modern standard of living. And I did this not in fear of CO2, but in fear of CO2 mongers jilting power rates to un-economically sustainable levels within my lifetime.
Will we do it with wind power? Here in gloriously broke sunny southern California, one of our liberal demagods, Diane Feinstein, made certain that the Mojave desert was off-limits for wind power production just last year! The all-powerful girlie-man himself, the Governator, said a few months before this intelligent move "that if we can't generate wind-power in the Mojave, then where can we do it?" (quote not exact, cannot find the article in the popular press I thought I saved)
So, what will REALLY happen?
(Future fantasies required here, data optional)
What will population do?
In 1999 Kofi Annan, then Sec. Gen. of the UN declared we had just passed the 6 billion mark in human population. In June of 2008 Ban Ki Moon, the present Sec. Gen. of the UN declared that by 2050 we will pass the 10 billion mark.
How long will we need to reach 12 billion after that?
And what will all these people do? Will they be content to just sit around and eat? Eat what? Genetically modified crops? Will they not want to get around? Transportation et al?
If CO2 will indeed double from 0.04% to 0.08% in the same timeframe, is it even remotely possible that we may be on the wrong side of the decimal point in this discussion?
Six billion of us, just eating carbon sources and breathing generate 1 kg apiece per day, 6 billion generate 2 gigatons per year. Double population, and that goes to 4 GT per year, assuming all the extra 6 billion do is eat and breathe, using no carbon source heat or transport.
So what are we really arguing about anyway? If population control is not a central plank to AGW theory, then this just becomes a silly buggers game seven significant figures to the left of the decimal point while we argue ourselves blue in the face two decimal points to the right of the decimal point.
So what will really happen?
I read somewhere about a year or so ago that we already have about 80% of arable land under agricultural production. Will GM, with all of its questionable economic/political dimensions left un-discussed, be able to fill such a gap? Should it?
Population is the third rail of this non-discussion. And where is this population boom occurring? Italy? Germany? The U.S.? Not in terms of fecundity or natural births. Some of these nations are indeed experiencing population growth, but not through natural births. But through immigration. Immigration from where? And why?
Would it be standard of living? Hot water? Food? Jobs? What will the extra 6 billion of us do in a carbon-neutral world in 2100?
Build solar panels? Out of what? And with what energy source?
Concerned due to the mass hysteria of going from less than one tenth of one percent of CO2 in the atmosphere to an appalling STILL less than one tenth of one percent CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 (if its true), I have invested thousands of bucks in alternative power systems (i.e windmill, solar panels and the third rail of alternative energy, storage), I cannot provide on a totally spun-up basis anywhere near enough power to maintain a modern standard of living. And I did this not in fear of CO2, but in fear of CO2 mongers jilting power rates to un-economically sustainable levels within my lifetime.
Will we do it with wind power? Here in gloriously broke sunny southern California, one of our liberal demagods, Diane Feinstein, made certain that the Mojave desert was off-limits for wind power production just last year! The all-powerful girlie-man himself, the Governator, said a few months before this intelligent move "that if we can't generate wind-power in the Mojave, then where can we do it?" (quote not exact, cannot find the article in the popular press I thought I saved)
So, what will REALLY happen?
(Future fantasies required here, data optional)
