Another sign of warming climate?

Paddlers' Place
#161

The idea that relying more on EVs or hybrids automatically creates a free ride on bad impacts is not realistic. But then again this is so for any of the energy technologies including fossil fuels.

The only reason that we are not killing off whole generations of coal miners in the Appalachians and PA is because we have mined out all the anthracite coal. Not because we decided to entirely stop using it due to the impacts. And worldwide poorer villages or neighborhoods in cities get visited with the most damaging of pollution from garbage burners to the remaining fossil fuels base load power plants because it is easier to get themapproved when the damages are visited on disadvantaged populations. Or the places that have had their ground water table badly impacted by fracking for natural gas. More often than not more rural populations with less ability to mount an effective opposition.

I happened to be in a group that beat a supposedly impossible plant some years ago. And in fact since then it has become nearly impossible. Right after we won our case right up thru NY Court of Appeals, they changed the regulations so that citizen groups like ours would not have as big a voice in the proceedings.

My point being that the picture of what is better or worse is rarely well formed by staying on a narrow path. If overall hybrids and EVs are a better idea, then the correct solution is to fix the undesirable stuff like we have tried - at least partially - with every other technology.

1 Like
#162

World population is currently about 8.04 billion. The UN projection is 10.43 sometime around 2090 then leveling off and starting a slow decline by 2100. These estimates are based on worldwide estimates of fertility, mortality, and migration. 26% of the world population is projected to be over 65 by 2100.

The US population is projected to be increasing to 433 million or about 6.8% of the world’s population by 2100. The percent of Africa’s population will be growing to 39.4 % while Asias’s will fall to 43.4%. Where population will be decreasing is primarily in China and Indian.

China’s current population is about 1.45 billion or 18.5%. Indian’s current population is about 1.48 billion. These two countries make up about 36 % of the total world’s population. These two countries are the ones where population will be falling the most. They will be driving a downward trend in population even though the populations in the western Hemisphere will still be increasing, and Africa’s population rapidly expanding.

What this suggest to me is China and Indian will have gone passed the max while the rest of the world with the exception of possibly Europe will not have reached their max yet.

Here are some questions to be asked. What does it mean when a population reaches a maximum level? How long is that sustainable? What impacts on an ecosystem happen at a maximum population level. Is irreparable damage done to the ecosystem before the maximum can no longer be sustained? What does it mean for an economy based on growth if the potential for growth declines with a decreasing population? What does a classic population curve look like, and why is the population forecast stopped as the population starts to level off and drop? is it because we just don’t know?

Some aspects of population biology I recall from my studies. No species population can continue to increase indefinitely. They will hit a wall of limiting resources at some point. It is usually a single important limiting resource that becomes the limiting factor, but it can be multiple factors that can lead to a population crash.

The 3 factors of population growth in a country are birth rate, death rate, and migration allow for a simple modeling of population dynamics. However, each of them is very complex. Take mortality and what drives those numbers when a population collapses. Disease, habitat loss, limiting resources, inter species aggression to name a few.

Surely those things won’t happen to us. Aren’t we separate from nature. Surely, we are too smart to let this type of thing happen.

Is the population forecast a good sign for the planets future or will it lead to the classic population collapse we see so often in nature which is boom and then bust. What have we said about climate change? It’s complex! I certainly do not pretend to know.

World population growth, 1700-2100, 2022 revision - Projections of population growth - Wikipedia

Animation: The Global Population Over 300 Years, by Country (visualcapitalist.com)

1 Like
#163

Creating babies is very popular and it’s difficult imagining that going away.

2 Likes
#164

There is an interesting study using MRI to see the brains response to things we have a vested interest in. When we are presented with information contrary to strongly held beliefs or vested interest, we do not use the part of the brain where logic is processed but the areas of the brain that do light up are involved with disgust and conflict resolution. We will resolve the conflict in favor of our interest and endorphins are released further reinforcing our position. However, where we have no strong belief or vested interest, our brains do not react the same way. Rather logic is used to access the information and make a decision based on the information assessment.

In other words, we are often slaves to our bias. None of us are truly immune to this reaction. I have seen it in myself. My sometimes-successful approach to countering this reaction is to address it after I let time pass when I recognize the immediate response of disgust and know my honest belief and vested interest. Then I try to access the information with a more logical and open-minded approach. I have over time been able to change what I believe by doing so. Believe me it isn’t an easy thing to do.

3 Likes
#165

Oxford says “aspiration” is a desire or ambition to achieve something.
That “something” could be anything from a breakthrough clean energy solution for the world to a few solar panels that bring light to an off-the-grid African village for the first time.
I could not disagree more with the idea that aspirations are a first world luxury .

1 Like
#166

Nice discussion of population data and projections, thanks!

On the subject of a growth economy, as opposed to a sustainable economy, there is a good book that is worth a read:

Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train: Errant Economists, Shameful Spenders, and a Plan to Stop them All: Czech, Brian: 9780520225145: Amazon.com: Books

While the title might suggest it is about climate warming, it is not, it is about the economic models typically used that call for growth always, without end, and argues that a sustainable economy is a better model to use.

2 Likes
#167

Sorry, I was being a little sarcastic in that last statement. The point is in the first world we have the luxury to seek, discuss, argue about some of the solutions/ideas you and others have brought out in this thread, but if you’re in the third world wondering where you next drink or meal is coming from you simply don’t have that luxury. You have different aspirations.

#168

Yes, that is the point the answers are complex and nuanced, and I believe that in many ways the quote from Thomas Sowell applies, “there are no solutions, only trade offs”.

Additionally, as i said previously my skepticism is more related to policy than data/science. Many of the policies don’t seem to consider the complexity of the issue, nor recognize some extremely negative impacts said policies have, e.g. the situation in the Congo.

#169

I came across this today.

19 ‘mass extinctions’ had CO2 levels we’re now veering towards, study warns | Live Science

1 Like
#170

Thanks for sharing. Good article. I find Live Science to be one of the better on-line sources for science news.

And, for those who may wish to dig deeper in understanding this analysis, it does not seem to be behind a paywall:

Mass Extinctions and Their Relationship With Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration: Implications for Earth’s Future (wiley.com)

I would suggest going to the discussion section first, because they have included a lot of information there that will inform you on alternative hypotheses, other factors looked at, etc.

1 Like
#171

Thanks Greg I will spend some time reading this study. I started a new post would you be kind enough to post this link there. I think it is too important to be lost in this post’s many replies.

#172

Interesting read that in a way means our discussion of a warming climate isn’t the concern. It reaches the same conclusion that we should reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuel use, but not because of the threat of global warming/climate change, but because of rising, dangerous levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

My only concern (skepticism?) about some of the data is their economic data. Economic changes are hard to predict and not hard science and I wonder about the authors’ expertise in economics.

#173

Well, yes, smile, we are not really concerned about warming in and of itself, at least those of us that are concerned.

It is the consequences on the things we do care about, such as loss of species, flooding of cities, desertification in places currently able to be cropped, more damage from more intense storms, etc.

I feel like that was too obvious, and I am not understanding your statement?

I agree that economic data and analysis requires some salt. Too much like predicting the weather, on the one hand, and as an ecologist I can’t agree with the growth model that they all seem to use, see upthread, the book Shoveling Coal on a Runaway Train. But I need to find a little time to read this paper more thoroughly.

#174

It’s good to be skeptical, but it’s best to have a hand on the knowledge you are skeptical about. Otherwise, the skepticism can have little real value.

I believe they used data from economic studies. I went through some of the literature citations. As an aside it is very enlightening to go through the citations and see just how much science has been conducted in the area covered by this paper. The current information rests on a mountain of science. That is how progress in science is accomplished. Here is what I found they took their economic data from. I may have missed other links.

Here are the links to what I found.
Fast market penetration of energy technologies in retrospect with application to clean energy futures - ScienceDirect

How the Renewable Energy Sector is Growing so Rapidly | World Resources Institute (wri.org)

Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (cambridge.org)

Faster Than You Think: Renewable Energy and Developing Countries | Annual Review of Resource Economics (annualreviews.org)

#175

Then why does that seem to be where the focus of the argument lies? I find this argument much more compelling primarily because we are a very adaptable species and capable of overcoming many of the consequences associated with warming. As far as the loss of other species, as the paper shows, that is better correlated to CO2 levels than temperature warming and climate change.

#176

Yes, it is the human generated CO2 which is the major concern. What are the sources and how to address them in a timely manner to reduce their eventual impacts is the question we are trying to address. The Oceans will be absorbing what is already there now and that amount will be persisting for hundreds of years to come even if we cut them to zero today. The way it stands now is every day we are making it harder on us and life on our speck in the cosmos.

I remember in my twenties how far into the future 70 seemed. I think that same illusion is how we see the next 50 to 100 years.

#177

Oh, you meant it as such. OK, I would say that the warming is what causes the other impacts, and rather than give long winded statements that get too far into the weeds, warming is used. If you read through the many papers and articles, you will find that warming, as the cause, is being talked about because that is what needs to change in order to avoid impacts to the many other things. does that make sense?

#178

It doesn’t to me. If the real problem is affecting the seas and not that the UN is telling us we will boil to death then why don’t tell us the truth.

#179

The real problem is affecting many things, not just the sea. Not just loss of species. Not just farming. Many things.

I have not heard pieces saying we will “boil to death”. But yes, I will agree that evocative wording and exaggerating has been problematic on both sides of the discussion.

1 Like
#180

I’m with @bud16415 on this, not really. For me, a mass extinction event caused by CO2 accumulation is a greater threat and a more compelling argument than threats of rising seas levels or changes to arable land caused by warming that while difficult can be dealt with.