Why is the UK shutting down climate research? 03 February 06

And another related story which caught my eye the other day is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1698599,00.html

Apparently the DTI and DEFRA can’t agree on CO2 emissions numbers and targets. So we have The Department of Trade and Industry lined up against the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Industry vs enviromment or am I reading too much into this?

Whatever – someone needs to bang some heads together. A 7 month period of inaction is a disgrace.

Douglas Coker

That David Cameron seems (that’s seems) to be the best hope…

How despare inducing Blair has become. Of course he’ll spout some fine words again soon, and those who still think fine words butter parsnips will be taken in. But, the reality is, we’ll look back on him, when he’s gone, with no small amount of disgust.

Good, that’s not much of a legacy for him :)

I’ve added a comment to the NERC site! So thanks for the heads up :)

“If you consider the way the environmental movement portrays climate change, it’s the end of the world as we know it,” said Porritt. “In reality, climate change could provide a stimulus to an extraordinary shift in the economy [and] it could improve people’s quality of life. You never hear all that.”

Norb, I read this somewhere and Jonathan Porrit was writing about all the good that could come out of a low-carbon lifestyle, adopted in the face of the dangers of climate change. Exactly what Lynn Vincenthal has been saying. You misread it.

Almuth

Apart from our differences over the causes of GW and the best ways to respond to it, I do agree that the threat posed by GW will, hopefully stimulate our civilisation to make fundamental changes that result in a better quality of life for more people on the planet.

However, please do not take this sentence out of the context of the rest of his article which was reproduced over the new year in The Independent.

JP takes a pragmatic approach in insisting that we need major players in the private sector to leverage the kinds of change needed. He also chairs the UK’s sustainable development commission, whose website is at http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/ It is a site that I recommend to anyone interested in the broad subject of SD.

I rather fear that much of the other stuff on this site won;t find favour with you Norb but, hey! it’s good to agree once in a while.

all the best

Colin

What we have is a choice between win-win (mitigate GW & help the economy) v. lose-lose (emit more & more GHGs & risk grave consequences; AND lose out on savings from energy/resource efficiency/conservation).

But as an earlier entry here pointed out, this is a totally insane, bizzaro world, in which people hard-heartedly & stupidly & insanely choose the lose-lose option. Or, maybe the devil’s making them do it.

“The old economics is dead” That’s how Larry Elliott starts his “Economics” essay in today’s Guardian. Punchy, with much condensed wisdom and very much to the point, Elliott knocks the ramblings and fulminations of other contributors to the AGW/CC debate into a cocked hat.

This man knows his ppms, understands the difference between GDP and real measures of well being, knows his Lovins and recognises the dead end nature of business as usual capitalism.

Read it here http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1702952,00.html and be illuminated and inspired.

Douglas Coker

I’m teaching “Political & Legal Anthropology” this semester. We had a reading on modern warfare, and a student emailed me this quote from Dostoyevsky’s “Notes From the Underground,” which seems to fit AGW, as well as war:

“Why, to maintain this theory of the regeneration of mankind by means of the pursuit of his own advantage is to my mind…as to affirm, for instance, following Buckle, that through civilisation mankind becomes softer, and consequently less bloodthirsty and less fitted for warfare. Logically it does seem to follow from his arguments. But man has such a predeliction for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic…Only look about you: blood is being spilt in streams, and in the merriest way, as though it were champagne…And what is it that civilisation softens in us? The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations – and absolutely nothing more…Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever. Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves (15-16). Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation…Gentlemen, let us suppose that man is not stupid. (Indeed one cannot refuse to suppose that, if only from the one consideration, that, if man is stupid, then who is wise?) But if he is not stupid, he is monstrously ungrateful! Phenomenally ungrateful. In fact, I believe that the best definition of man is the ungrateful biped” (17,20).

Here it comes…

Scientist predicts ‘mini Ice Age’ ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI)—A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a “mini Ice Age” in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth’s surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun’s energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere’s most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little

Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r

We still need to do all we can to reduce GHGs, esp if he’s wrong in the opposite direction, as in supposing the sun starts to shine more, then added to the warming we’ve caused we’ll really be in super-hot water.

OTOH, even if he is right, scientists tell us there is still 2 more degrees of warming over this next century in the pipes from our GHGs to date, so even if we reduce GHGs drastically there will be a warming trend that will counterbalance the cooling trend, and it will all work out beautifully. I really do hope he’s right, & I even thought maybe something like that could happen to get us out of hot water.

We won’t lose from reducing GHGs, since the very measures that reduce them also reduce many other harms (acid rain, local pollution, etc), as well as save us money & strengthen the economy.

The prudent measure then is to keep reducing GHGs, while hoping that guy is right about a impending cooling trend.

As for his suggestion that the sun has caused the warming this past century, the scientists are very adament that that isn’t so. The Russian is flat wrong on that. But I do hope he’s right about us headed for reduce solar output.

We should keep in mind that many things can cause warming (& cooling), and it has been long accepted in science that GHGs cause warming, as in the natural greenhouse effect, and what’s happening on Venus with runaway warming, or Mars being cooler due to its very meager greenhouse effect.

Let’s not spoil earth.

Is this scientist genuinely convinced of what he is saying? There is one good way of finding out – direct him towards the those climate scientists more than happy to bet on this. He wants to bet that the mean global temperature in 10 years will be lower than in 2005? Easily done. Such bets were discussed on RealClimate!

If he won’t bet – could it be because the Earth’s radiative imbalance is such that decades of warming are unavoidable – some of the heat absorbed by the oceans in recent decades has to be given off to the atmosphere. Sure, if the sun was to cool quite massively, it would help. Mind you, the ‘Little Ice Age’ caused such minimal changes to the global mean that it won’t make much of a dent into global warming -we’ll all have to hold out for it to do something quite a lot more dramatic! And funny, those eccentric scientists who tell NASA that the best instruments aren’t good enough to measure solar radiation but who apparently must themselves have such wonderful secret instruments that they can say what solar radiation will be in decades to come!

Almuth

Whoopsie!

the solar scientist forgot that the CO2 ppmv is much higher now than in the LIA.

Best,

D

Hi Lynn,

you recently were taunted by Norb in a rather heavy-handed attempt to deliberately misunderstand your intentional wordplay.

Well, whilst browsing the electric-vehicles Uk website, I came across the following link which graphically illustrates exactly what I think you meant.

When I read Solzhenystyn’s ‘The Gulag Archipeligo’ years ago, it left me pretty upset. This is as bad; no worse, because it is being perpetrated by people we put in power, today, as I write this.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/1452237

It may be old news to you, but I’d missed this before, when it was touched on in the UK press.

take care

all the best

Colin

Why were there no Polar ice caps during the Triassic? Was the carbon dioxide concentration higher then than it is now?

Either something I wrote implies something that I did not intend, in which case I shall apologize to Lynn, or you have misunderstood what I wrote, in which case I suppose that you will apologize to me.

I have taunted and mocked only the arrogant know-it-all.

By the way, you have not explained why I should believe that we will run short of resources.

as to a response to your last post, I have been mulling over my reply. I won’t keep you long.

yours

hubristically

Colin

Why were there no Polar ice caps during the Triassic? Was the carbon dioxide concentration higher then than it is now?

Ooh! Good question. No. CO2 levels were lower than today, as vulcanism hadn’t gone on for that long. What else do I remember from bioclim classes so long ago…hmmm…

IIRC, there was still one continent then, and the shallow seas (more heat storage) and lack of mountain ranges (no frictional force to cause changes in zonal flow) resulted in a far different climate than today. There was only one continent and moisture transfer to the interior would be difficult, and no meridional flow [no deflection from mountain ranges] would make continental heat transfer occur into interior – but one big continent means it’s dry in the center as moisture precipitates out by the time it gets to the middle.

Most importantly, one big shallow ocean could move heat around to the poles and prevent ice caps with relative ease…

These facts make comparisons to deep past problematic, and those who read arguments that use deep past to compare to today should keep these fundamental differences in mind.

Best,

D

Norb, If you type CO2 levels and Triassic into google you instantly get an answer from Bristol University. Here it is: http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Triassic/climate.htm

Yes, CO2 levels were higher during the Triassic. They are believed to have varied from 1000ppm to 2500 ppm. And yes, it was hot.

Almuth

I have reviewed all of the posts that I can find and cannot find the one to which you refer.

Which post? What subject? How long ago?

Please.

Thanks

Dano,

You are a true professional and I loved reading your detailed response which shows a very thorough knowledge of climate science.

BTW, I went out on a limb recently concerning the next hurricane season in a recent post.

Based on my simple understanding of climate physics, I believe this summer’s hurricane season will be similar and maybe even worse than last year based on a belief that last year’s hurricane activity is evidence of a very real shift in the climate.

I think if I am correct, that this may prove that the “increased” hurricane activity of the last 2 years is not caused simply by mere weather anomalies but by climate changes caused by GW/CC instead.

I would love to hear a candid response as to your assessment of what we may expect this summer and if my thoughts are relevant enough to assert this forecast.

I base my thinking on a very cold winter in Europe when 2005 was the hottest year on record suggesting heat retention in the tropical ocean waters which influence hurricane formation and intensity.

This occurrence is likely a direct result from ice-melt salinity changes slowing ocean currents which “would have” transported some of this heat from “the hottest year on record” to “have provided” a more mild winter for the UK and Europe.

I also base it on recent observations from the near miss in New Orleans in 2004, the 2 major hits in the Gulf Coast in 2005 (one which “re-flooded” parts of New Orleans), and the unusual pattern of hurricanes during December.

Since heat was not being delivered via ocean currents to Europe, is this an indication that this heat was available to create the unprecedented hurricanes during non-seasonal months?

In addition, NOAA’s prediction for the number of hurricanes last year was off by a factor greater than 2! I found this to be a significant event as well. That is over 200 percent off!

Is NOAA now able to make a credible prediction for this summer? Have they updated their forecasting abilities with revised algorithms in their programming to be at par with the true reality for this season?

This dialogue is important to me. If I am correct, then this may be the year for instant public awareness to occur on GW/CC which may create the necessary paradigm shift in our culture.

This would be a very significant event in itself following what may be another devastating series of natural disasters to hit the USA, 2 years in a row.

I cannot conceive that this would be unconvincing evidence to even the harshest skeptics. If the 2006 season is even close to last year’s season, then the earth will make a statement to us all and in particular to all of us in the USA.

So, I await your reply. If I am on the right track, then we need to plan for what the world may look like this summer in terms of public awareness.

If what we discuss as a minority on this blog comes full circle, then it is conceivable that GW/CC will be in the mainstream news and the number one topic in the USA. That can affect the strategy of everyone involved with energy and GW/CC and what if those oil facilities are hit again adding another economic blow to us.

Next hurricane season is just a few short months away! I would like to know if I am on track or simply too presumptuous with my thoughts.

Best Regards,

Dan

Yes, and isn’t it interesting that life thrived throughout the Permian when carbon dioxide was high (2,000 ppm), yet the greatest extinction of all occurred at the end of the Permian as carbon dioxide concentrations fell below 1,000 ppm.

Then life recovered and thrived throughout the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous (about 140 million years) with carbon dioxide concentrations up to 3.500 ppm. Then, as carbon dioxide concentrations fall below 1,000 ppm, the dinosaurs all die.

Then, as carbon dioxide concentrations rise above 1,000 ppm during the early Tertiary life recovers, only to suffer more extinctions at the end of the Pliocene as carbon dioxide concentrations fall once again.

Tell me again why we now expect mass extinctions as carbon dioxide concentrations rise.

Is NOAA now able to make a credible prediction for this summer? Have they updated their forecasting abilities with revised algorithms in their programming to be at par with the true reality for this season?

Careful, now Dan. This is the language the quibblers and obfuscators use. ‘Credible’ must be defined, else it’s meaningless and thus polemical.

To your question, we next must separate policy from science. Policy might have enough evidence to act, but science demands more evidence, and statistically it is diffucult to discern a trend in the beginning or middle of that change. IMHO it’s 50-50 right now.

But if you were a decision-maker using indicators, SST would be a key to deciding on action; that is: if you were in charge of taking action to reduce life/property loss along GulfMex, you’d key on SSTs as an indicator to hrcn strength. 2-3 more years of hi SSTs [in named range] and more than a dozen named storms, say, and you’d recommend action [whatever action agreed upon]. Certainly if this year is like last hrcn season, then as a decision-maker you have to start gearing your folks up for action. Scientifically, however, this year might not tip the scales.

But decision-makers use multiple ways of knowing in addition to science to make decisions – and this is important when considering action; this fact is why denialists, mendacicizers and obfuscators use techniques other than those found in Enlightenment principles to sway opinion.

Best,

D

Every comprehensive study of hurricane-caused property damage has concluded that there has been no discernable increase in either hurricane strength or intensity; that the increasing property damage is solely due to increased development along our coasts.

The same number of hurricanes will cause increasing property damage in the future because of increasing property value of barrier islands and low-lying coastal areas.

Would it not make more sense for the decision makers to decide to limit development of coastal areas?

Why alter all of society because of specious projections by inaccurate computer models when altering development procedures along the coasts will prevent the damage?

If I just could figure out what those Enlightenment Principles are, I could stop using those pesky mendacious, obfuscating techniques. Please help.

Tell me again why we now expect mass extinctions as carbon dioxide concentrations rise.

Because the current life forms on the planet are adapted to lower concs., for one.

But you knew that. You’re just FUDing.

Now, SIT. Sit…good contrarian! That’s goooooood! good contrarian! Awwww! Wookit the contrarian! Ohhhh! bellyrub!

D

Norb, please do look carefully at the link I posted above, because you are getting some facts quite wrong.

Life thrived in the Permian when temperatures and CO2 levels were stable. The mass extinction coincided with a massive spike in CO2 levels and a massive spike in temperatures(what caused this spike of course is still unknown).

Life then recovered slowly and although temperatures and CO2 levels rose again during the Triassic they did so much more slowly. You are right in theory in that a sudden global cooling event could be equally catastrophic for life adapted to a hothouse as sudden global warming is for life adapted to cooler climes. There is, by the way, a near consensus that the end-Cractecous extinction was caused by an meteoric impact (which of course would have caused climate change).

Also for your information (something I hadn’t understood until this week either) – the sun was weaker in those days, so 1000 ppm would have corresponded to a far lower temperature then compared to 1000 ppm today or tomorrow.

Almuth

When I look at the plot of the history of carbon dioxide concentrations on the site that you linked, I see a spike at the end of the Carboniferous extending into the beginning of the Permian. This corresponds to the period of rapidly increasing species and numbers of individuals. The carbon dioxide concentration begins falling approximately half way through the Permian and falls below to a minimum just after the beginning of the Permian.

The mass extinctions occurred during the last million or so years of the Permian, during the time when carbon dioxide concentrations were falling rapidly. The duration of the Permian was about 40 million years, so one million years would be the last 2% of the period. I believe that the period of extinctions forms the boundary between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.

Theories of the cause include massive volcanic eruptions, with concomitant acid rain and wildly fluctuating carbon dioxide and climate.

I guess the main question is how much high SSTs influence the formation and intensity of hurricanes. I do not understand enough about the other variables. It seems that higher SSTs will be evident this summer like last year and they may be even higher. Would that be a reasonable forecast? I wonder how much SSTs influence hurricanes over other weather variables. Based on last year alone, it appears to be an important factor.

I guess what I am trying to understand is the likelihood of what to expect this summer. Experts say we are already in a decadal cycle which favors hurricanes. My assumption is that global warming has influenced both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. I think both current weather cycles and the influence of GW/CC combine to create a greater effect and the more likely occurrence of a repeating pattern of devastating hurricanes.

When you said 50/50, did you mean that the odds of last season repeating itself to be close to 50/50? That would be a coin toss for this summer but over the next few years, it would be more likely than not. I guess if NOAA cannot predict it with “great” accuracy, then none of us really can.

Still, the question regarding NOAA is relevant. Do they have the best available technology and methods to forecast a hurricane season? I wonder if enough changes to the climate and weather have occurred to warrant an upgrade on methodology. Based on the law of averages, the forecasting should both overestimate and underestimate what really happens. I do not know if one predominates or not since I have not looked at the numbers. If underestimation prevails, then I wonder if I should multiply a NOAA estimate by a certain percentage or would NOAA numbers at face value provide the best assessment.

With respect to the science, I must concede that factors like how many hurricanes make landfall may be out of the range of accurate predictability for a season. If we could just predict the frequency and intensity of storms better, then this could help policy makers.

I appreciate all of your thoughts about this Dano. The reason I am curious is that if a measurable climate change can be discerned from hurricane activity from the last 2 years and for the next few years, then this can be used as direct climate-change evidence.

When hurricanes provide evidence about the effects and costs from GW/CC, then this has more of a dramatic impact than merely forecasting higher temperatures.

The link between GW/CC and the greater frequency of natural disasters from more and intense hurricanes follows from this thinking and this becomes a useful tool to influence concern and action to mitigate the effects of GW/CC.

If GW/CC can be more quantified in terms of costs, then it may help encourage better policy decisions including better economic analysis as well. This may encourage better decisions regarding where to build and how to build along vulnerable coastlines plus encourage the protection of natural barriers to storm surges such as wetland areas.

All the best,

Dan

Your statement below is illogical:

”… that the increasing property damage is solely due to increased development along our coasts.”

Norbert, your reasoning ability is very poor!

Last year, the hurricane season broke all records for every measurement relating to named storms including the number of them. Last year, we had the highest costs from the natural disasters which followed from all these storms. So, how can you make the assertion that it is “solely” due to increased development?

Now, I know your answer to this is that these studies exist. Yet, if the weatherman predicts sunshine and it rains, would you deny the rain because of that forecast. If an ancient book said the earth was flat would you bring it to our attention here to prove the earth flat? I think not!

Based on your “logic”, the intensity of a wind or how often the wind blows are variables which are totally irrelevant to wind-caused property damage. I guess if we had no wind at all, then the increased development along our coasts would create the damage “solely” by its mere presence alone.”

For your education Norbert in how to think:

More wind = more damage! Stronger wind = even more damage. More development = more damage.

All these 3 statements above are valid.

Norbert says:

More development = more damage. More wind = no affect on more damages. Stronger wind = no affect on more damages.

Only one of these 3 statements above is valid!

Of all the people I know of who desperately need remedial education on simple logic, it is you Norbert.

If you went back to school and learned how to think properly, then maybe you could post something of value on this blog!

Dan

I think that you need to review the historical statistics of storm parameters before you make more categorical statements that those statistics confute.

I think that you need to review the historical statistics of storm parameters before you make more categorical statements that those statistics confute.

Well, those big ol’ wurdz have, all by themselves, convinced me! Yessir!!

1., 2., 3., 4., 5.

There is certainly room for debate, but the increasing evidence cannot be ignored. Narrow consideration of only certain statistics that we like because they make us feel good does the debate no good.

Now. Goooood contrarian. Shake. Shaaaake. Gooood! Sit. Treat? Shake! head pat

Best,

D

the historical statistics of storm parameters before you make more categorical statements that those statistics confute.

The historical statistics of the various storm parameters such as the number of hurricanes and their intensity indicate that these storm parameters have increased the extent of the property damages last year and the year before.

In fact, this increase in damage far exceeds any damages “solely” attributed to increased coastal development alone during this same historical timeframe. In fact, the number and intensity of these storms created more damage than ever before when we had fewer and less intense storms in the earlier parts of our historical records.

Therefore, the conclusion based on recent historical statistics is that development along the coastlines cannot be the sole influence to the amount and extent of damages and anyone who uses this data alone will be incapable of predicting future damage since more frequent and intense storms seem to have a larger and more direct influence than previous studies may indicate which simply assumed this storm activity was to forever remain a constant.

Since storm activity is increasing (I wonder why!), then the greater influence on increased property damage warrants more consideration of building near coastlines since the amount of development can no longer be the “sole” factor for a prudent analysis by any intelligent person as the current historical statistics indicate!

It is evident that you Norbert cannot understand the simplest logic or how to interpret the relevant historical statistics of storm parameters by the categorical statements that you have made which those statistics confute. I can conclude from deductive reasoning that you cannot reason deductively and are not an intelligent person and so you are incapable of making a prudent analysis.

Goodbye,

Dan

Most hurricane scientists agree that there has been no measurable increase in the intensity of hurricanes during the past 50 years.

Hurricane frequency is cyclic; the number of storms during the 80s and 90s was below the long-term average. It appears that the cycle has come around to more frequent storms again. The higher number of storms during the past couple of years is the result of that pattern. The number of storms last year may have exceeded the number during the previous two frequency peaks, the 60s and 30s, but we cannot be certain, because our detection process is so much better than it was even 40 years ago. Storms do not escape detection by satellites; they may have in the past.

My point is that the storms that make landfall cause more monetary damage today because there is so much more development along our vulnerable coasts than there was formerly. In 1950, Florida was the 20th most populous state at 2.7 million persons. In 2004, Florida was the 4th most populous state with 17.4 million residents and poised to pass New York by the end of the decade. There is a lot more property exposed to hurricane damage now than there was 50 years ago. (The data are at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html)

The debacle in New Orleans was not caused by the intensity of the storm. The storm was a level 3 hurricane and caused relatively little damage. The broken levees ruined New Orleans and caused the lion’s share of the damage.

The studies that I have seen all agree that the property damage is higher today because of the increased exposure of property to damage. Have you seen any studies that attribute the increasing monetary damage to storm intensity and frequency?

One highly criticized paper by Dr. Emanuel appears and because it says what you would like to believe, you disregard all of the other data and claim that the issue is in doubt.

Then you accuse me of considering selected statistics because they make me feel good.

Do you ever think about what you write?

One highly criticized paper by Dr. Emanuel appears and because it says what you would like to believe, you disregard all of the other data and claim that the issue is in doubt.

Who, exactly, did the ‘highly criticizing’? Do tell. I wonder.

Anyway, I included two papers, a discussion of the recent findings that you don’t like so much, and a press release for those without access.

Forget to mention them? Care to discuss those?

Fetch, lil’ contrarian! Go get some stuff! Good boy!

Best,

D

You linked Dr. Emanuel’s letter to Nature, an article on an activist web site (UCS), a speculative modeling study by Knutsen, and two emissions from Kevin Trenberth. That hardly is a demonstration of serious discussion in the scientific community.

But, as I said, you seem able to believe that anything that you want to believe constitutes scientific proof that your beliefs are correct.

More power to you, it must be nice to be able to be certain. However, you need to learn that being certain is not the same thing as being correct.

...it must be nice to be able to be certain. However, you need to learn that being certain is not the same thing as being correct.

I said nothing about certainty.

I said: There is certainly room for debate, but the increasing evidence cannot be ignored. in reply to your statement about storm parameters, which implied there is no evidence. I provided the evidence.

But we all here appreciate you having to put words in my mouth to make your point.

You’re starting to bore me again, back to your same ol’ tricks. Can’t we have a pet that learns new tricks?

Try again, pet contrarian.

Speak. Speeeeak. head pat Speak!

Best,

D

Unforeseen scientific research from Russell P. Hopfenberg, Ph.D. and David I. Pimentel, Ph.D. indicate that our species is on the verge of overwhelming the small, finite planet God has blessed us to inhabit. Certain distinctly human unbridled global “over-growth” activities appear clearly now to be patently unsustainable. For repeated references to Dr. Hopfenberg and Dr. Pimentel’s data go to the website,

http://journals.aol.com/sesalmony/HumanandEnvironmentalHealth/

Thank you for taking a moment to review new scientific evidence of the species Homo sapiens with particular attention to human population dynamics.

Norbert, you wrote these three sentences below in this exact sequence and it makes me wonder about you. When it comes to logic, Mr. Spock you are not!

“The debacle in New Orleans was not caused by the intensity of the storm.”

“The storm was a level 3 hurricane and caused relatively little damage.”

“The broken levees ruined New Orleans and caused the lion’s share of the damage.”

My reply:

I am totally astonished Norbert that you find no correlation with the levee damage in New Orleans and Katrina!!!! The fact that the levee damage coincided with a hurricane to you must be a mere coincidence!

I hope you do not reply back with an answer suggesting that the broken levees caused the hurricane!

At the rate you are going these days, I fear the worst!

Dan

According to these data from Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel, global human population growth is a positive feedback loop in which the increasing food supply results increasing human population numbers and the growth of the human population fuels the misperception that what we need to do is increase the food supply. Hunger and starvation in the world is not a food production problem, it is the result of unfair and grossly inequitable food distribution. As Kofi Annan has noted for years, our abundant harvests are ample to feed the people in the world. What is lacking is the political and economic will to redistribute world food resource more sensibly. By so doing, it would be possible to resolve an obesity problem among those millions who have too much food to consume and the problem of hunger among many too many, literally billions of people who are least fortunate among us. Please read carefully and examine skillfully the data from Dr. Hopfenberg and Dr. Pimentel. Thank you.

The remarkable data of Hopfenberg and Pimentel indicate tha the population dynamics of Homo sapiens are common to the population dynamics of other species. Looked at from a global population or species perspective, more food equals more people; less food equals less people; and in any case, no food, no people. The spectacular success of the world’s human economy, especially its rapidly increasing food production and distribution capabilities, has resulted in an unanticipated and completely unintended effect: a human population bomb is exploding now on our small, finite planet. Given their scale and rate of growth, global human numbers; per human consumption; and the global human economy are occurring contrary to the requirements of biological and physical reality. Please find references to these data below.

http://journals.aol.com/sesalmony/HumanandEnvironmentalHealth/

I will read and comment later when I have more time as I have studied sociobiology.

As one of the tool makers of the tribe, solutions to population control will make our efforts easier so I am interested about ideas on how to solve this important problem.

Keep up the good work!

Best wishes for now,

Dan

Dear Dan,

It is difficult for me to understand how people with an interest in preserving biodiversity and safeguarding the integrity of Earth, focus so little attention on what could most likely be the proverbial “mother” of all global challenges: the global growth of the human population. The deleterious impacts of certain distinctly human “over-growth” activities upon all else that lives on the planet are now visible to all. Are rising per human consumption of limited resources and expanding endlessly the production/distribution capabilities of major interlocking national economies worldwide not yet clearly seen only momentarily to defy biological and physical requirements of the natural world? Given the current scale and rate of growth of the human enterprise on Earth, has the time come to ask one another what is humankind doing to the place God has blessed us to inhabit as well as how much longer can the Earth tolerate much more of our “business as usual” stewardship? Thanks again.

Steven,

I think that China is a country which merits further study on how they are dealing directly with this issue. Their experience at policy to limit population may yield some practical insights toward the effectiveness of various solutions and their experience on the negative impact of these policies on families and individuals also warrant full understanding.

In our culture, economic growth must not be coupled with more population growth. Laws, economics, and social values must encourage responsibility among citizens not to create unwanted pregnancies or very large families and also not to penalize people for remaining single through higher taxation, etc.

It is difficult to impose unpopular restrictions on a very personal aspect like this in our free societies. Yet, we do have to make progress or population will be reduced anyway through starvation, natural disaster, and resource wars which is more reflective of our primordial DNA than our intellect.

Every society is different with different religious values so this detail cannot be ignored. The concept of assimilating the societal value of responsible growth with full respect to religious customs and other customs must be an integral part of any analysis. In fact, the policy for remedy may vary widely with respect to culture and family values.

I encourage you to become more solution-oriented as to the best recommendations which can be developed which most successfully can reduce population growth.

In fact, the notion of analyzing various family structures within a “blood-line” can yield the effect of how some families grow modestly while others explode with each individual in a large family also having large families. So often, experts look at the “large numbers” and trends using statistics but may fail to look at root causes of how particular families and their values magnify the problem.

Another focus for further study is to take various family “blood lines” both modest and large and calculate the total energy and resources consumed by the total surviving members as a function of time. This analysis can yield the actual environmental and economic costs associated with how particular blood-lines grow to become ever larger.

In addition, the aspect of how resources are utilized must also be evaluated. It is not merely the increase in humans but the increase in humans which waste the most energy and use the most resources. Large families with command of resources enabling the survival and comfort of its many members must be responsible to invest in sustainable practices as part of their total family value-system.

I wish you success in your noble quest. When the links between energy, resources, family birthrate, and family values, and individual awareness are analyzed within categorical family structures, then a greater understanding can result.

Clarity of how to best address this problem may then emerge and it may even influence altruistic people to plan the size of their family in prudent ways and to promote a more sustainable lifestyle. Family members can then pass these values on to their progeny

Best Wishes, Dan

Dear Dan,

These ideas from you are welcome. Thank you for them. Hopefully, others will contribute to our discussion.

Of course you are correct when you recognize a need for solutions to the looming global challenges posed to humanity by certain distinctly human activities: namely, human propagation, per human consumption and human overproduction. At their current scale and rate of growth, these human “overgrowth” activities cannot be sustained much longer by the small, finite, noticeably fragile planet God has blessed us to inhabit.

But before it is possible to “treat” the ‘patient,’ we need to have an accurate diagnosis of the disorder. That has been the object of my focus for several years. Once the diagnosis was at least tentatively determined, it seemed best to take the next step of helping raise awareness of precisely what challenges are posed to humanity by the growth of human enterprise on Earth.

Since I am of advanced age, I am hopeful that those who are younger and who will likely come face to face with challenges that now can be seen in the offing, will put their many wondrous human attributes and their knowledge of science to work on finding “cures” that are consonant with universally shared human values.

Thank you again.

111

According to the emerging data, it may be helpful for human beings to take a look at ourselves, both in culturally derived terms and in terms of human beings as evolving creatures in a natural world. We humans appear to have a culturally inflated view of what it means to be human based upon commonly held beliefs in illusory cultural transmissions about the “placement” of humankind within the natural order of living things, transmissions borne of hubris that appear to deny the requirements of biological and physical reality. Human and earthly limitations are everywhere ignored.

With regard to economic globalization, culturally driven illusions about Earth as a cornucopia and the world economy as set for endless material expansion represent the denial of both human creatureliness and biophysical reality.

Perhaps humanity has only momentarily postponed the consequences of unbridled growth of global human numbers, per human consumption and business as usual worldwide. Perhaps living beings of the human kind are not somehow sidestepping or else defying the limitations imposed upon all that lives by biological and physical reality. It is the illusion of having done such things or having the capability of doing so that needs to be carefully examined.

BECAUSE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE DATA COULD BE PROFOUND, it is with a sense of a “duty to warn” that I come forward and implore those of you with regard for the preservation of global biodiversity and the protection of the ecological integrity of Earth to carefully examine emerging data of the human overpopulation of Earth.

As of February 25, 2006 estimates indicate that 6.5 billion people live on the planet. Data also indicate that one billion more human beings live on Earth today than lived here a mere 12 years ago. Seven billion people will be here several years from now.

Where could the unbridled growth of human population numbers, per human consumption, and the global human economy take us? Is the unrestrained increase of business as usual activities of the human species not patently unsustainable on the small, finite planet we are blessed to inhabit?

Thanks again for your consideration and congratulations to Mark.