One might think that in a Spaceship Game, people who SEE this all the time might have adopted the perspective.. Earth is a ball of rock somewhere in outer space, with a biosphere close to the surface. Therefore it can be seen as a closed system, and that's why the concept of sustainability should be everybody's priority number one.
ED reflects reality in so many ways.One might think that in a Spaceship Game, people who SEE this all the time might have adopted the perspective.
It's not that I don't share your criticism of the "climate debate" to a certain degree, and I even agree with Peterson on some of his views on Terror Mangement Theory (TMT)
The climate has all the focus these days, but as I wrote, the climate is just one of the alarm whistles. Earth is a ball of rock somewhere in outer space, with a biosphere close to the surface. Therefore it can be seen as a closed system, and that's why the concept of sustainability should be everybody's priority number one. Well, it isn't.
I recently handed in a master thesis on the subject. I started out looking at running out of phosphate rock, and as considered good scientific practice, I read as many arguments for and against a "peak phosphorus" scenario that I could find. The ones arguing against running out of phosphate rock were mainly from economists. Interestingly enough, one of the other disciplines of science being part of the Replication Crisis is economics.
I knew little about agriculture when I started working on the thesis, but the more I read about it, the more I realized that it's perhaps one of the most important parameters for our survival and well being. Then I started looking at the limiting factors of the global food production. Climate is only one of them. Using system dynamic modelling and biophysics, it became more and more clear to me how the system works, and how much we're up the creek with regards to energy. You simply can't produce food enough for 8-12 billion people without fossil energy, unless you have an alternative, and that's one of the areas where people are fantasizing wildly. We can't get an alternative up and running, before we'll see a decline in oil production, even if we disregard the climate and keep burning the remaining reserve. That will lead to less food available while the population is expected to grow. It simply doesn't match up with basic biology.
The professors I had as thesis supervisors said I must had made a miscalculation somewhere, so we went through the models and the calculations, but they couldn't find any errors. Then they said something like: "You're probably right, but no one wants to know. How 'bout lunch?". Another professor I discussed my work with said "You HAVE to stay positive!". As I've said before, you can't eat positive attitudes. With most scientists they try to keep the positive mindset, but confronted with the facts, they have no solution to a very simple problem. The carrying capacity of Homo Sapiens has been pumped up to an unsustainable level, because of our use of external energy, and once that runs dry, we're... Well I'm not allowed to use that word.
The essay from Franzen in The New Yorker, the one the climate scientists hated for being too pessimistic, only consider climate. Add running out of energi, minerals, food, water, economic growth and denialism, and you got a nasty stew, but you can't eat that either. If you know about TMT the denial of "extinction" is really not that mysterious, but denial is not the solution.
Unfortunately, you lack such background.As a general rule I'm interested in the opinions and thoughts of anyone with a solid brain and learned background who cares to opine on the topic at hand, even if it isn't their main field. I look at people like you who employ the tired old trick of disqualifying people because they aren't experts in the field so therefore shouldn't be heard as eminently dishonest.
Besides, Peterson isn't being presented as an expert on climate science, but rather the mentality surrounding the debate which he IS an expert on. Instead of blindly going into defense mode every time a contrary opinion pops up to challenge your narrow minded world view you should actually take a step back and try to understand what it is you're responding to.
Gregg, no offense, but you really need to work on your reading comprehension. You responses to me seem nonsensical in the context of my last few posts.I'm sure your definition of "background" wasn't that, otherwise your previous comment would have made no sense.
The different estimates of the phosphorous peak, is caused by the USGS data. Around 2010 a group of scientists discovered that the USGS global reserve back then combined with exponentially growing production, except for a 10 year period after the collapse of the Sovjet Uninion, would lead to a peak around 2030. Then one Moroccan mine's resource was upgraded to reserve, which leads to a peak around 2070 in my models. My task were to model both scenarios, because the upgrade is highly controversial, so we probably will see a peak around 2050.Great point - I haven't given much thought or seen much attention paid to the Phosphorous problem since visiting Nauru in the late 70's when I first became aware of the issue. It's certainly an issue that presents another challenge moving into the future.
But I think that's the way to look at it. Its another challenge to be overcome. A solution may not be evident now, but hopefully as resources become scare and prices rise, there will be economic incentives sufficient to motivate finding a way to overcome the problem.
Unfortunately for Nauru the demand for Phosphates has destroyed the island and left the inhabitants economically devastated.
Keep in mind that we've heard about "peak oil" and predictions of population collapse many times, and yet we've managed to keep moving forward with quite a bit of adaptation, technological breakthroughs, and ingenuity.
It does seem there's a wide range of the estimates of when Peak Phosphorus will be, from as soon as 2030 to as far out as 2092. Regardless, it's definitely a problem looking for a good solution.
Yes, and the whole article i linked is very interesting, and very positive. When it is the top people that run our economies telling us they understand we have to move to green economies, or watch them collapse (he quotes the CEO of Morgan Stanley in the article), that is about 90% of the battle won.He is right.
We have the demonstration with Audi that will propose 30 models of electric car in 2025.
Bye bye oil.
There is plenty of positives to be found alongside the evidence of just how bad AGW is (and is going to get).Renewable energy sources provided more electricity to UK homes and businesses than fossil fuels for the first time over the last quarter, according to new research.
The renewables record was set in the third quarter of this year after its share of the electricity mix rose to 40%.
It is the first time that electricity from British windfarms, solar panels and renewable biomass plants has surpassed fossil fuels since the UK’s first power plant fired up in 1882.
It was unfortunately predictable at term.Ooops
An expedition to the East Siberian Sea has reported two examples of what scientists have long feared – methane fountains bubbling to the surface as frozenwww.iflscience.com
The United Kingdom on the front line'Renewable electricity overtakes fossil fuels in UK for first time':
There is plenty of positives to be found alongside the evidence of just how bad AGW is (and is going to get).
And there is no time to delay these kind of decisions due to concerns like these:The European Investment Bank (EIB) has balked at a proposal to halt new investments in fossil fuels, raising concerns that Germany and other nations are plotting to water down what would be one of the financial sector’s most ambitious climate moves.
The EIB, the largest public bank in the world, announced this year that it would end lending to new gas projects, having already curtailed funding for coal and oil. This would free up more money for renewable energy developments. The details of the plan were expected to be confirmed by a board meeting of EU finance ministers on Tuesday but last-minute lobbying has forced a postponement.
Executives of the bank, which is owned by EU member states, said the plan was still on course and would probably be approved next month.
“The new energy lending policy is a milestone on the EIB’s road to transform itself into the EU Climate Bank. I am pleased about the important progress made today and am confident of securing a final approval in November,” said Andrew McDowell, the EIB vice-president responsible for energy.
But climate campaigners fear the measures will be delayed further and weakened.
So while progress IS being made where it matters (in some sectors of the finnancial system), we still have a long way to go to avoid catastrophic AGW issues over the next few hundred years. We must all apply the pressure needed to make those changes faster.The governor of the Bank of England has warned that the global financial system is backing carbon-producing projects that will raise the temperature of the planet by over 4C – more than double the pledge to limit increases to well below 2C contained in the Paris Agreement.
In a stark warning over global heating, Mark Carney said the multitrillion-dollar international capital markets – where companies raise funds by selling shares and bonds to investors – are financing activities that would lift global temperatures to more than 4C above pre-industrial levels.
As long as there’s a drop of oil left under the ground, the bankers will prowl around like vultures.As expected some people still don't get it:
'Concerns as EU bank balks at plan to halt fossil fuel investments':
And there is no time to delay these kind of decisions due to concerns like these:
'Bank of England boss says global finance is funding 4C temperature rise':
Mark Carney says capital markets are financing projects likely to fuel a catastrophic rise in global heatingwww.theguardian.com
So while progress IS being made where it matters (in some sectors of the finnancial system), we still have a long way to go to avoid catastrophic AGW issues over the next few hundred years. We must all apply the pressure needed to make those changes faster.