Peak Oil News and Message Boards

dohboi wrote:This was published a while ago, and linked to by Graeme, but is worth another look, I think:

Its not.
Nasa did not fund it

The following is a statement from NASA regarding erroneous media reports crediting the agency with an academic paper on population and societal impacts.
"A soon-to-be published research paper 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota’s Jorge Rivas was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity.
"As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/march/nasa-statement-on-sustainability-study/#.VKlyIiusVCg

You are just repeating falsehoods to gain a air of credibility.

Is anything you say ever true?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0914000615

This work was partially funded through NASA/GSFC grant NNX12AD03A.

Learn how to read, clownshoe.

NASA dishes out money for research like the NSF, NERC and NSERC. It does not contract pure research studies, hence the NASA media disclaimer.

dissident wrote:Learn how to read, clownshoe.

Awesome. Dissident is changing teams to back the loonies! What fun.

I really want people to think about what we actually could have done to prevent climate change. You guys here know better than anyone that we almost literally eat fossil fuels. So you were asking people to voluntarily starve themselves and there families.

Tikib wrote:I really want people to think about what we actually could have done to prevent climate change. You guys here know better than anyone that we almost literally eat fossil fuels. So you were asking people to voluntarily starve themselves and there families.

Yeah, I'm not sure what those guys are going in about.

For myself I'm not asking anyone to voluntarily starve, or even keep from having kids, although I understand the implications. I can't make that logic work.

But yet eventually people will starve. That is beyond our control.

Just try to not be one of them. That is all you can do.

Newfie wrote:

Tikib wrote:I really want people to think about what we actually could have done to prevent climate change. You guys here know better than anyone that we almost literally eat fossil fuels. So you were asking people to voluntarily starve themselves and there families.

Yeah, I'm not sure what those guys are going in about.

For myself I'm not asking anyone to voluntarily starve, or even keep from having kids, although I understand the implications. I can't make that logic work.

But yet eventually people will starve. That is beyond our control.

Just try to not be one of them. That is all you can do.

Right, as it looks now you essentially have two choices, voluntarily starve, or involuntarily starve.

No Lore, the two choice are do or be done to. Prepare or don't. Fight or don't.

If you want to role over and die, fine. Don't foist that on others.

Oh, don't worry there will be plenty of fighting between the choices I mentioned

Yes, well, no need to start the show early now is there.

Cheers.

Apologies if this has already been linked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9sxGj45eDA#t=36

"We are the asteroid"

And more from the same series here: http://vimeo.com/104640806

Certainly of all the damage we have done to Gaia, the most ominous and dangerous is climate destabilization. We have evolved within a certain narrow limit of temperature and within a relatively benign climate making agriculture feasible. So if we leave these confines it will not be a very hospitable planet for higher organisms. Recommend book "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet by Mark Lynas."

Well put. If someone tried to come up with an executable program that would rather quickly make the planet uninhabitable, short of a full scale nuclear war, it would be hard to come up with a 'better' plan than dumping millions of years of sequestered carbon suddenly into the atmosphere. Of course, we are also doing all we can to obliterate complex life on the planet by a number of other means. We might just succeed before we become extinct ourselves.

Here's another video from the same series as the one above. Yes, they're AMEG folks. But mostly they are saying pretty accurate things here (to the point that I've viewed it so far, anyway).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQkNxuQ0DoI

Here's another video from the same series as the one above. Yes, they're AMEG folks. But mostly they are saying pretty accurate things here (to the point that I've viewed it so far, anyway)

Scary video, but they ramble and rant and get off topic. Maybe the science is good, but a D for presentation.

I agree that it is not very polished.

Professor Ehrlich has been a long time prophet you could say of doom. His book Population Bomb written in 1968 was ahead of it's time. He warned of continuing unrestrained population increase. I have heard him many times speak and he always lists the arrays of damages we have subjected Earth too. So it does not surprise me he gives humanity a 10% chance of surviving this century. Reminds me of Dr. James Hanson (NASA) who spoke before Congress in the 80's warming about GW. Not to mention the impressive work of Limits to Growth again published in 1972. So we were warned alas we did not heed the warnings.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... 35rus.html

Climate change could make humans extinct, warns health expert

The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct'' as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned.

Helen Berry, associate dean in the faculty of health at the University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and colder at different points in the planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it is today.

''What is remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the change since the 1970s, when we started burning a lot of fossil fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to match this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of it, it will mean our extinction eventually.''

(Apologies if this was already linked.)

Even more foreboding is the possibility that Cid Yama has noted that the Arctic methane is ready to be released in massive amounts. I have read the posts of Cid and he posts with great supporting science based information. As we are now witnessing the methane plumes are appearing more and more in different areas and the Arctic is almost ready to be ice-free during the summer. So this possibility of a rapid release of methane is real. The results of which would be a rapid warming which few living beings on Earth could adapt quickly enough to, including us. End of agriculture which could then mean end of us. Could Geo-engineering save us, somehow that sounds dubious to me especially given that it could have nasty unforeseen effects. I guess we truly stand at a rather vulnerable time in our history!

And yet those massive amounts of methane never seems to show up at the monitoring stations.