Climate scientists see 'tipping point' ahead

An international group of climate scientists warns that a "tipping point" in the earth's life-support systems may be rapidly approaching, and that should we step over that as-yet-undetermined threshold, it may be too late to reverse course. "The science tells us that we are heading toward major changes in the biosphere," UC …

[jake]

During the meanwhile ...

BLT on homemade bread & aoli washed down with homebrewed IPA for Supper.

Get back to me when you have facts, not speculation.

[Quxy]

I like the sound of the homebrew...

...but not the dessert.

I take it you didn't bother to actually read the Nature article, which is pretty heavy on the facts, and pretty light on speculation.

For God's sakes, man, while there are plenty of perfectly valid controversies surrounding anthropogenic global warming, *none* of them are scientific: they all have to do with what political, societal, and ideological/religious responses are most appropriate in the face of human-caused climate change. Science does a pretty good job of telling us *what* is happening (and what is likely to happen if we do nothing), but certainly isn't the whole authority on *what* we should do about it.

[Sirius Lee]

Re: I like the sound of the homebrew...

@Quxy

Did *you* read the paper. It's whole point was that not enough it known. Go read David Deutch's Beginning of Infinity and get back to me. The earth and it's climate is a chaotic system and, like all chaotic systems, cannot be predicted. Your assertion that "Science does a pretty good job of telling us *what* is happening" does not lead to it being able to make valid forecasts therefore has nothing except speculation about "*what* we should do about it".

[Ian Yates]

Re: I like the sound of the homebrew...

@Sirius Lee

I completely agree with you, we don't *know* what will happen, but we can come up with hypotheses on what *might* happen. Of all the ones I've seen, "nothing" is the most optimistic and "global warming/destruction of a large part of the ecosystem" is the most pessimistic.

I completely agree that the agenda (any of them) has been stolen by the political, economic, and "green" lobbies in order to further their goal, but that doesn't disprove the science (but obviously should cast doubt over some of the findings).

Whatever the "truth" is, I can understand no argument against doing more research (hopefully unbiased) and suggesting ways to reduce our impact on our environment - we rely on the whole ecosystem and we are clearly "straining" (possibly a poor word choice) it in a way it probably has never been before.

We live in a fine balance between ice age and global warming, either of which will have a devastating effect on our species. And we're definitely not in control of what happens in a geological time-scale sense, but maybe we have some ability to control it in the short term?

[Tom 13]

Re: I can understand no argument against doing more research

Then you are a moron. Try this on for size:

You have $1 million available to invest. You have the following choices to spend it on:

1) El Run Hibbard Climatology FUD that claims we'll destroy the human race in 100 years for $250,000

2) El Run Hibbard Killer space asteroids from Mars FUD that will destroy the planet in 100 years for $250,000.

3) El Run Ponzi's Solar research that will generate affordable electricity FUD for $250,000

4) El Run Sagan's Mars astronaut scheme for $250,000 dollars

5) El Run Gadzooks commercial orbital station scheme for $250,000

6) Las Betty Cumin breast cancer cure research for $250,000

7) El Heffner's little blue pill replacement research for $250,000

8) Juan Quixhoatie's new improved plan for Middle East peace for $250,00

9) Mr. Freeze's cold fusion research for $250,000

10) Bonn Hovie's Aids research that will cure the beastie for $250,000

11) Improved medical care for British citizens for $1,000,000

12) Total email spam elimination for $500,000

13) An actual workable replacement for AV software for $500,000

14) Finally deliver the Year of the Linux Desktop for $1,000,000

What do you fund? Yeah, that's right you never have enough money to fund everybody's fantasy, so when it is public money being spent you damn well better make sure there is a real, near-term payoff for it. Personally I'd fund 2, 5, and 13 but YMMV.

[Ian Yates]

Re: I can understand no argument against doing more research

@Tom 13

Ad hominems aside, let's assume that the paper discussed in the article is correct and we're decades away from an irreversible climate problem, which we were unaware of because you spent half your research budget on AV software: how long do you get to enjoy editing your anti-asteroid footage before you run out of food?

In case my stance wasn't clear: I'm pro-understanding what we as a species are doing to our planet and how it will affect us in the future (and if we can do something to improve our time here).

If the option was to spend the money terraforming Mars or building a space ark, I'd be all for it: eggs and baskets, etc. But we only have one planet and one ecosystem.

[Steve Knox]

Re: I can understand no argument against doing more research

12) Total email spam elimination for $500,000

13) An actual workable replacement for AV software for $500,000

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!

Sorry, but if you're going to put forth hypotheticals, you could at least make them somewhat plausible.....

[Scott 1]

Re: I like the sound of the homebrew...

"We live in a fine balance between ice age and global warming, either of which will have a devastating effect on our species. And we're definitely not in control of what happens in a geological time-scale sense, but maybe we have some ability to control it in the short term?"

Agreed. I like the idea of looking for ways to control it in the short term. Maybe it's time for the engineers of Earth to get the creative mental juices flowing about possible technological solutions to the potential problems. Maybe we can "have our cake and eat it, too" so to speak.

Before we can get the necessary conversations going to start this process on a global scale, we must build upon a foundation of respect for one another (as was previously suggested). This begins with understanding:

- The scientists are correct that we will hit an environmental tipping point at some time in the future (whether man-made, completely natural, or a bit of both) and the human species probably will be greatly impacted by it.

- On the other hand, the "skeptic" / "denier" (or whatever you want to label them) crowd has a good point that the solutions proposed thus far appear untenable and could very well cause more death, destruction, and general human misery than the environmental catastrophes they are intended to avert.

- The vast majority of both sides are honestly concerned and truly want what's best for themselves and for humanity in general.

- There are evil elements on both sides who are interested only in advancing an agenda that benefits themselves or something they care about at the expense of all others.

At the heart of this discussion will two essentially conflicting viewpoints: The anthropocentric philosophy and the Gaia philosophy. The anthropocentric philosophy holds that the advancement of humanity is the highest goal. To this philosophy all other things, including nature, are only important in so far as they help support and advance humanity. The Gaia philosophy holds that nature is the highest goal, and to most adherents it has a "holy" status that is defiled by human contact (hence the phrase "unspoiled nature"). To this philosophy humanity is only important in so far as it helps to support and protect nature.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I like the sound of the homebrew...

Of course, in the Beginning of Infinity David Deutsch also wrote that we _shall_ need to do something about it because of the underlying greenhouse effect. He also dismisses the approach of deciding what to do based on economic analysis, since that just trades science for "prophecy".

It felt like he was repeating himself a lot, but it was worth reading and the Sustainability chapter shifted my thinking a bit.

[Tom 13]

Re: I take it you didn't bother to actually read the Nature article

Don't need to when one of the key driving factors is listed in this article and is demonstrably false. If you didn't spot it, you're either not smart enough to engage or already have your mind cast in re-enforced concrete against facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I like the sound of the homebrew...

Really? The fact that CO2 emissions are "worse than we thought" and yet HadCrut temps show no statistically significant warming for the past decade is not scientific? The fact that global temps are running at or below the lower ensemble model confidence limit predictions is not science? Just where do you get your science? Ocean acidification? Seriously?! You do understand that many of the coral species around today evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times their present value, don't you?

We have absolutely have to get away from this Garden of Eden/Mother Gaia/Panglossian nonsense that the Earth's climate of the 1700's was perfect and the best of all possible climates. Ice ages kill. Cold kills. We're a long way from thermageddon.

[NomNomNom]

Re: I like the sound of the homebrew...

"The fact that CO2 emissions are "worse than we thought" and yet HadCrut temps show no statistically significant warming for the past decade is not scientific?"

HadCRUT also showed no statistically significant warming from 1977-1987 and no statistically significant warming from 1987-1997. But it still warmed. If you just focus on a short period why do you expect to see statistically significant warming?

"Seriously?! You do understand that many of the coral species around today evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times their present value, don't you?"

I don't think you are correct. Species that far back were probably different than ones around now. Also ocean acidification isn't just about corals.

"We have absolutely have to get away from this Garden of Eden/Mother Gaia/Panglossian nonsense that the Earth's climate of the 1700's was perfect and the best of all possible climates."

That isn't the issue. The issue is change itself - changing conditions quickly is historically proven to result in extinction events. It doesn't matter where we start or where we end just so long as the difference is large enough and fast enough.

[ElReg!comments!Pierre]

@ Quxy Re: I like the sound of the homebrew...

> I take it you didn't bother to actually read the Nature article, which is pretty heavy on the facts, and pretty light on speculation.

I take it YOU did not read the paper, which is really heavy on (admitted) speculation and states that the available facts are pretty light. Which is a good summary of the whole field, socio-political and industrial agendas notwithstanding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

Nah, you wake me up when you can be arsed to listen to anything which doesn't chime with your pre-fixed point of view.

[Martin Budden]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

The point of the article is: "We need to go get the facts".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

Hence the use of the pejorative "Deniers". Is it helpful, in an article calling for facts, to do that?

A little less hot air and a little more respect on both sides would improve the debate and the science.

[Dave 126]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

>Hence the use of the pejorative "Deniers".

The article was at least acknowledging their viewpoint, and even gave a brief rationalisation of what might have informed it (i.e a suspicion that climate change researches are driven by grants or 'Green' ideologies). Though the author could have used the term 'Sceptic', that would suggest that they would be cautiously accepting of the thesis given evidence, and so couldn't be applied to views such as Jake's.

But I do agree with you, respect for both sides is what is needed.

[Sean Timarco Baggaley]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

"The article was at least acknowledging their viewpoint,"

Er, no it wasn't. I've never met anyone who denies that the climate changes. I was learning about that in the 1970s, during geography lessons.

The term "Climate Change Deniers" means I have no useful label for myself. I'm quite happy to believe that climate change exists. What I disagree with is the whole politicisation of the science of anthropogenic climate change. There are facts buried deep inside a thick, dark layer of bullshit.

On both sides.

However, the article reported on by Rik Myslewski's piece proposes solutions that—contrary to Rik's assertion—are EXACTLY what I thought. Specifically:

* reducing world population,

* reducing per-capita resource use,

* reducing the role of fossil fuels,

* improving energy efficiency,

* increasing the efficiency of food production and distribution,

I've copied that first item in bold for a good reason: there are undeniably too many humans on this planet. That is the source of all our major problems. Cut back the population and the other items on that list will happen automatically: fewer humans = lower resource use, less use of fossil fuels and less energy used overall. Job done.

But humans are selfish, religions are dogmatic, and many adults want their own families, so that's a very, very difficult problem to solve. Much easier to just pretend to "solve" it.

My preference is to focus on space exploration before the shit hits the fan—assuming it actually does so; the jury's still out on exactly how and when it'll happen, let alone what fresh forms of hell it'll come in—and get seriously into colonisation. We used to be very good at that, and at least we'd have some insurance.

Bollocks to CO2 emissions and all that ignorant rot: it's just a kludge. A political bit of sticky tape and string wrapped around the "too hard" problem of telling our fellow members of this Homo Sapiens clan to fuck less.

Come back to me when you have a "scientific consensus" that actually agrees with the above, because anything else, barring massively disruptive new discoveries in science and technology, is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[sisk]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

Hence the use of the pejorative "Deniers".

I'm not sure I'd call it pejorative so much as convenient. Seriously, what else are you going to call them? People who disagree about climate change? Those who believe climate change is natural or not occuring at all? Can you imagine how ponderous it would be to use something like that everywhere that we see 'deniers'? The term 'climate deniers' neatly bundles up these ideologies without the need to define who they are every single time they're mentioned, just as 'Greens' does for the other side of the debate.

[Sean Timarco Baggaley]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

"Seriously, what else are you going to call them? People who disagree about climate change? Those who believe climate change is natural or not occuring at all? Can you imagine how ponderous it would be to use something like that everywhere that we see 'deniers'?"

So you believe that using a blatantly inaccurate term to label every opposing viewpoint, despite the sheer complexity of the subject, is fine? So you won't mind if I call your side a bunch of Tree-hugging Hippy Alarmists? I mean, that's just as valid a label as yours, and no less misleading.

You've heard of abbreviations and acronyms, right? There a handy technique for applying a complex label in a quick and easily typed way. I'm an Anti Climate Alarmist. That's "ACA". How fucking hard is that to write down or type?

Stop inventing excuses. If you want to have a proper debate, it really, really helps if you stop beginning each attempt at intelligent discourse with a massively childish and utterly idiotic insult every bloody time.

[sisk]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

So you won't mind if I call your side a bunch of Tree-hugging Hippy Alarmists?

Actually I'm neutral in the debate. I, like most people, simply don't have the time -- or resources for that matter -- to weed through all the competing claims and properly research them myself in order to discover the truth. What I'm left with, as with most scientific journalism, is a dependance upon the media.

That said, a lot of the measures proposed by Greens make sense even without climate change being factored in. Fossil fuels are a finite and increasingly expensive resource, so it makes no sense to perpetuate our dependence on them. Increasing energy efficiency across the board would save us all money, not to mention that it's probably our quickest route to breaching the barrier and becoming a type 1 civilization. We can't feed the humans already on the planet, so why the heck would we not want to work towards reducing, or at least stabilizing, the population? You don't need climate change for these things to be good ideas.

Now as far as 'massively childish and utterly idiotic insults', which of us resorted to swearing at the other? I'd think it clear from my previous post that I've never run across the term 'anti-climate alarmist' before, and it does provide a good answer to the valid question I posted, so thank you for that.

I would apologize if you found my last post offensive, but frankly after taking a second look at it to make sure, I'm fairly certain that you found it offensive mostly because you chose to.

[Tom 13]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

No the point of the article was to spread FUD and gin up research grants. It's obvious from one of their known false assumptions. Particularly galling since elsewhere in the article they use the means by which we know that assumption is false to gin up more fear.

[James Micallef]

Re: Facts not speculation

This: "if fertility rates remain at the rate they were at from 2005 to 2010, population projections for 2100 top off at a staggering 27 billion" is not only speculation but fairly thinly-disguised scaremongering wrapped around a huge hypothetical. Fertility rates are dropping all throughout the world, the best UN projections are for 9 billion global pop around 2050 and an eventual stabilisation around 12 billion. Sure, that's still a huge amount of people to feed, a lot of resources being used etc etc, but still less than half of the population that's being used a s a baseline here.

[Tom 13]

@James Micallef

Dammit! You let the cat out of the bag. It's more fun to toy with their alleged scientific reasoning when they can't find the big hole with the flashing neon lights saying "Here the hole! Here's the hole!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

"Get back to me when you have facts, not speculation."

AKA: Lalalala I'm not listening!

That's a daft approach. I hope that you don't work in DR, or similar. Your mindset seems to be that as long as there is only POSSIBLY a planet-wide disaster that will totally butt-fuck the entire human race looming, we do nothing.

If you are driving too fast in the rain towards a brick wall and you MIGHT hit the brick wall, do you wait until you know for sure one way or another prior to taking avoidance action?

[Aaron Em]

"If you are driving too fast in the rain towards a brick wall and you MIGHT hit the brick wall"

...it would behoove you to make sure you're actually about to hit a brick wall first, before you take the risk of swerving blindly into another lane that might contain anything from a blue-haired granny in a Mini to an articulated truck with a driver tweaked to the nipples on meth. After all, it's rainy out and you're driving too fast. How can you be sure of what you're seeing up ahead?

(Or: it's possible that having too many humans will result in Malthusian catastrophe, so, to ensure we don't overrun the planet's carrying capacity, we will establish death camps and institute a program of daily mass executions. It'd be nice, just every once in a while, if you lot would consider the potential consequences of your plans for a shiny new future -- but, contra your endlessly self-serving propaganda, there's precious little evidence on offer that any of you have that kind of foresight.)

[Ian Yates]

Re: "If you are driving too fast in the rain towards a brick wall and you MIGHT hit the brick wall"

Nice strawman argument, but why swerve when you can just slow the car down and turn on your headlights?

And population control doesn't require death camps, just education. I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime (at least, not a world scale), but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea in principle.

[gzuckier]

Re: "If you are driving too fast in the rain towards a brick wall and you MIGHT hit the brick wall"

what part of "not screwing with the climate randomly as a byproduct of the need to oxidize as much fossil fuel as possible as quickly as possible" reminds you of "swerving into another lane"?

[Trokair 1]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

So we are going to use questionable science and even more questionable assumptions based on historical data (not taking into account advances in several fields) to make some over-blown predictions that we are not calling predictions so that nobody calls us on our load of crap. Sounds about right.

[T.a.f.T.]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

Did you raise the pig on crops you had grown yourself, make your own flour from your own crops and grow all the bits that make the IPA? If you did I hope you didn't use anything but compost you had made yourself on the soil? If not then you have used some of the vastly inefficient system of getting energy into humans that is our current farming system.

[jake]

@T.a.f.T. (was: Re: During the meanwhile ... )

"Did you raise the pig on crops you had grown yourself,"

Pigs. Plural. And yes.

"make your own flour from your own crops"

Yes, occasionally, when we're teaching kids where food comes from.

"and grow all the bits that make the IPA?"

Yes. Always. My beer is home grown. It's the only way.

"If you did I hope you didn't use anything but compost you had made yourself on the soil?"

Yes. Horseshit makes for really good compost, when you know how.

"If not then you have used some of the vastly inefficient system of getting energy into humans that is our current farming system."

You have issues. I have a self-sufficient ranch.

[gzuckier]

Re: During the meanwhile ...

Well, don't stop there; tell us what "facts" would be relevant to the existence of tipping points in the global warming process? Other than "oops, we should have done something earlier, we're screwed now". which of course will be denied by all the usual suspects even after the fact, but I won't prejudge you on that.

[jungle_jim]

In summary

Lets find out what might make things happen,

That way if those things aren't something we like we can stop them.

I think.

[Bilby]

Hyperbole much?

"The paper reports that if fertility rates remain at the rate they were at from 2005 to 2010, population projections for 2100 top off at a staggering 27 billion."

Yeah. And if my new puppy continues to put on weight at his current rate, he will be the size of my house in five years time.

According to less panicky sources, "By 2100 there is an 80% chance that global population will number between 6.2 and 11.1 billion"; and a 95% confidence that the population will be below 13 billion.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/world-population-projections-iiasa-probabilistic

The most likely peak population for planet Earth is around 9 billion people, sometime in the middle of this century, tailing off slowly to about eight and a half billion by 2100.

Any study that starts with such a blatant piece of inaccuracy, with no obvious motive other than to instill panic and fear, needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Either these guys haven't done their homework, or they are deliberately attempting to misinform their readers. Neither possibility fills me with confidence in the value of their conclusions.

[Dave 126]

Re: Hyperbole much?

I'm sure that the authors of the report don't expect the population to be 27 billion by 2100, but are rather stressing the point that our current rate of growth is unsustainable.

Though it would be nice to think that population growth will plateau for the same reasons as in some Western countries (female education, good health care) there aren't the resources for these factors to be applicable across the world. The reason why we won't come near 27 million is a lack of food, a lack of water, and no doubt some old fashioned genocide as well. Malnutrition, death, and horror.

[Zombie Womble]

Re: Hyperbole much?

"I'm sure that the authors of the report don't expect the population to be 27 billion by 2100, "

Then why say so?

Are you suggesting they included it just to scaremonger?

[Nigel 11]

Re: Hyperbole much? @Dave 126

I'm sure you're right about "Malnutrition, death, and horror" in some parts of the world. That's basically the same view Thomas Mathus espoused.

I'm also sure that you're wrong about large other parts of the world. 50 years ago, you'd surely have predicted the worst for Latin America: poor, run by dictators, and overwhelmingly Catholic, a religion that opposes birth control. Since then, population growth has slowed dramatically. The best extrapolation has it reaching zero by 2050.

There's also the Chinese approach, where having more than one child was criminalized. We can never know whether the Chinese would have curbed their fertility voluntarily, given female education and access to birth control. Also we will never know whether it saved (or will save) China from population control by famine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hyperbole much?

I tell you which stats I believe. The fact is, as unbelievable as it sounds, there are more people alive on the surface of the planet today, than people who have lived and died from the start of human history all added together. Yes that's right, uninterrupted exponential growth. We human's are simply a very successful organism and the only reason we haven't reached plague population densities as quickly as locusts do is because we are mammals and the reproduction/population growth cycle has a different order of magnitude. But our population is growing exponentially. Don't believe me, do a few simple searches to check the truth of it.

So just what mechanisms does the EU report state will bring about the radical deceleration from the currently accelerating trajectory? Really. Think about it. Population grows because people want to have sex and reproduce. It aint gonna decelerate unless there are highly intrusive factors.

So don't panic, they are probably just being professional by missing out the bit about civil war, mass starvation and genocide. No doubt it's been authored by equally sensible people in the pocket of EU bureaucracy as those who were claiming fragmentation of the Eurozone would never happen and was only a scare story produced by swivel eyed loons.

One thing screams out of this report and that it that it is mis-titled and most likely deliberately so. The big issue it covers isn't climate change, but population pressure leading to the exhaustion of the earths resources. Only saying there are too many people and the number is growing at an unsustainable rate and there's naff all we can do about it apart from buying a mountain top retreat with a large basement larder, a sniper rifle and a lifetime supply of bullets isn't a politically correct message.

[Aaron Em]

"Uninterrupted exponential growth"? Bullshit!

Thick, eh? Well, we all do our humble best, don't we? Certainly you've got the 'humble' part down pat. Wipe the dribble off your face, tighten your helmet liner, and try again.

[Steve Knox]

Re: Hyperbole much?

The fact is, as unbelievable as it sounds, there are more people alive on the surface of the planet today, than people who have lived and died from the start of human history all added together.

Speaking of hyperbole...

According to Wikipedia:

"As of today, [world population] is estimated to number 7.018 billion by the United States Census Bureau."

Later in the same article:

"An estimate of the total number of humans who have ever lived was prepared by Carl Haub of the nonprofit Population Reference Bureau in 1995, and was subsequently updated in 2002; the updated figure totalled approximately 106 billion."

Now these numbers are from Wikipedia, which is not a primary source, but the good thing about Wikipedia is that they provide references: you can validate the numbers at the US Census Bureau and the Population Reference Bureau. You can check their methodologies, assumptions, etc. But I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find a plausible estimate which is significantly different. So I'm pretty confident in saying that current population is only roughly 7% of the total past populations.

[Ken Hagan]

Re: uninterrupted exponential growth

For most of human history, world population has been flat. For those at the back who aren't paying attention, that's "flat" as in "Malthusian".

Just after the second world war, we had the green revolution which vastly increased the food supply. *So far*, the effects of this have been 3 generations of uninterrupted exponential growth. Big surprise, but no-one who has tracked world population back before, oooh, 1950 or so is expecting it to continue.

In fact, I'd recommend that anyone (who hasn't already done so) go away and find a respectable graph of world population against date for the past few thousand years and mark in the moments when food production technology (in any region of the planet) took a jump forwards. It's very instructive and slightly unnerving when you think there are people out there seriously advocating back-tracking on some of these innovations.

[Tom 13]

Re: we will never know whether it saved China

Yes, we will, and the answer is the cure is worse than the disease. The results of the Chinese policy are that because they want boys instead of girls for kids, they have a huge population imbalance that is growing larger. It WILL result in war somewhere. If we get lucky, it's a civil war and only kills Chinese with collateral economic affects on the rest of the world. More likely we all wind up involved in a land war in Asia. And everybody knows how that will turn out.

[Nigel 11]

Re: we will never know whether it saved China

How can you be so sure? The traditional attitude that girl children are worth less will fade in the face of girls being highly desirable. The same technology that allows selection of a male child allows selection of a female one.

It's also possible that we'll see the evolutionary reason for male homosexuality in action. That's highly speculative, and not intended in any way as endorsing any moral viewpoint. Evolution doesn't appear to have a moral viewpoint, any more than the law of universal gravitation does.

[Aaron Em]

OK, but

there's still a generation of young Chinese men angry about not getting laid. Historically speaking, if you want a civil war, that's a great way to make one more likely.

[Nigel 11]

Re: we will never know whether it saved China

And one other thought. If too many unsatisfied males causes wars, then the massive excess of females in the European population after ther carnage of WW1 should have prevented WW2.

[Aaron Em]

Yes

Because the only thing that can cause a war -- not just a civil war, any war -- is having too many un-laid young men around. Do you think much, ever?

[ElReg!comments!Pierre]

Re: Yes

> Because the only thing that can cause a war -- not just a civil war, any war -- is having too many un-laid young men around.

Historically speaking, the very reason why The Mighty British Army had a very, very hard time conquering the Zulu Empire despite the fact that it was "modern" rifles against sagaies is supposed to be that young Zulu warriors were not allowed to mate until they had killed an ennemy*.

Don't underestimate the sex drive!

> Do you think much, ever?

Do you?

* That, and they were fitter and accustomed to the land ("faster than horses", according to some reports).

[Ammaross Danan]

Other papers

"Increased CO2, the paper contends, contributes to "a higher rate of global warming than occurred at the last global-scale state shift,"

Apparently, they missed the other paper that says the exact opposite.... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/07/warmth_and_carbon_decoupled_miocene/

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget....

Scientology states the earth supported a 65 Billion population. A mere 27 Billion isn't so bad (unless the last 65 Billion used up all those good "supportive" resources....burn them).

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes...

And American Evangelical premillennial dispensationalists claim that the world will end and every True Christian will be raptured within the next few decades, so global warming doesn't matter. What's your point? Personally, I'd rather take a somewhat longer, scientifically-informed view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes...

As a premillennial dispensationalist myself, I thank the Lord that I am too old to be proved wrong in my own lifetime!

(Escape, because that's what the Rapture is all about)

[Chris 211]

Panic

Well if the presented 'facts' at the start are wrong the I smell bull for the rest of it. Mind you in general less humans is always a good thing, maybe we need to put some breaks on the breeding. These dammit women with there 'its my right to have a child' piss me off, costing the nhs, tax payers just because they feel a bit sad, boo hoo. Can we please quit breeding for five minutes! Problem is its not good for the economy, government wants there little future tax payers, it's budgeted for there existence!

[Dave 126]

Re: Panic

Hi Chris, have you considered this:

The things that piss you off (well-off educated women delaying conception for work and needing IVF) are symptoms of the very factors that have caused our population to plateau (female education, empowerment, lower fecundity etc ).

(If it wasn't for net immigration, our population in the UK would be stable or falling.)

I'll give you this: our current culture re women and work in the UK isn't ideal. In France it is more common for educated women to have children in their early twenties and then pursue their career afterwards.

You are also right about having an economy based on constant growth. Bertrand Russell had some ideas about this some time ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Panic

It seems to be the immigrants who are having all of the children since many of them come from cultures where the woman is still the housewife and stays with children in the day.

[0_Flybert_0]

it's really easy guys and gals ..

as it warms, there is more evaporation of water .. warmer air holds more water vapor ..

but it has been found that the overall humidity has increased very little .. instead there is more cloud cover ....

... which reflects more solar energy back into space .. and increases rain and snowfall

so this is nature's balance as the air and oceans warm .. it is the negative forcing of water vapor and clouds by reflecting and scattering the more energetic shortwave spectrum .. and cloud albedo reflecting the suns energy back into space that not only balances water vapor's (50%) and clouds (25%) 75% of the greenhouse gas effect .. but also balances out CO2's 20% greenhouse gas effect

Warming causes CO2 rise because warmer oceans both release more, and absorb less CO2 than cooler oceans .. this is partially offset by trees absorbing CO2 faster, growing faster but still sequestering that carbon for an average of 200 years

BTW .. when you burn a HYDROcarbon .. you actually emit significantly more H2O than CO2 .. so by burning fossil fuels we emit more *trapped for 100 million+ years* H2O than CO2

let's see .. water (vapor and clouds) is 75% of the greenhouse gas effect ... we emit more H2O buning fossil fuel than CO2

CO2 is 20% (at most) of the greenhouse gas effect ..

yet we ignore man cause extra H2O emitted .. and don't call for reducing water vapor .. WTF?

and the "cleanest" fuel is methane .. one Carbon .. four Hydrogen .. burning creates one CO2 and two H2O .. OMG .. twice as much of a MORE dangerous greenhouse gas

We need to dry the earth's air before it's too late .. water vapor and clouds have almost 4 times the warming greenhouse effect as CO2 !

[Anonymous Coward]

"We need to dry the earth's air before it's too late .. water vapor and clouds have almost 4 times the warming greenhouse effect as CO2 !"

Do try and get a clue. CO2 is the forcer , water vapour is the responder. With no CO2 the earth would cool, water vapour will condense out of the atmosphere which would cool even more leading to more condensing etc. With global warming as you pointed out the opposite happens. CO2 does NOT condense out - its slowly removed by plants and other processes but it hangs around for a long longer than water and amplifies water vapours effects for the reasons I've given.

[h4rm0ny]

Speaking as a skeptic about AGW, your argument against AGW is hopelessly simplistic and shows no grasp at all about how complicated the climate actually is.

[Nigel 11]

Wrong climate regime @0_Flybert_0

What you describe is the very simple mechanism that's kept the Earth habitable through most of the last 600 Myears. It pertains whenever there is no near-sea-level ice to be found on the planet, which isn't today.

Today, we are in an intergracial period between ice ages. During an ice age, there's a built-in positive feedback regime. If the ice advances, it reflects solar energy back into space, causing further cooling. If it melts, more land is exposed, and that encourages warming. Especially since it thaws out methane hydrates trapped in permafrost, causing large releases of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. There's geological evidence that this sudden thawing has happened several times since the recent era of ice ages started, followed by a more gradual reglaciation.

We may have caused the tipping point towards melting, or we may be about to do so. We are living in a most unstable climate regime that would or will tip within a geological eyeblink(*) in any case, with or without the influence of humanity.

As for that ice-free planet, it's good news for large reptiles, and bad news for large mammals like humans. The stable temperature in the equatorial belt would be too high for humans to survive anywhere with high humidity. (temperature > body temperature, humidity near 100%, and you die).

(*) for non-geologists: a geological eyeblink is some time of the order of a hundred thousand years.

[0_Flybert_0]

Re: Wrong climate regime @0_Flybert_0

actually ... I'm highly educated in the subject including the most recent research

the only "tipping point" we might be headed for is the equivalent of a little ice age .. between going into the cooling phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation .. the cooling phase of the long term Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .. we are looking at a 20-30 year cooling cycle that may have already started 2-3 years ago .. plus a significantly weaker solar cycle and the next cycle predicted to be even weaker .. possibly the start of an approximately 200 year cycle that fit's the warming and cooling periods for the last 9000 years

if CO2 is driving warmth .. how do you explain that it cooled 1940-1978 as man's CO2 emissions steadily rose ? .. the temperature did jump 0.2C 1979-1980 .. but from 1980 .. according to the NASA satellite data .. the temperatures actually cooled, quite a bit by 1985 and were below 1980 by 0.15C average until 1997 .. and we are only about 0.2C above 1980 today .. though April and May were warm

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

and get some education in the math and science on the subject ...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

Dr Spencer's page at NASA just in case you think he's unqualified

http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php

[NomNomNom]

Re: Wrong climate regime @0_Flybert_0

I've plotted global temperature since 1900, plus the Sun and CO2.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:132/normalise/from:1900

The recent warming is clear. And if you want to ask what fits the data better, CO2 fits the recent warming a lot better than the Sun.

[Magani]

SIR is a title

If the tipping point is 'as-yet-undetermined', how can anyone say it's coming soon?

Penguin, 'cost it's the closest to the Chicken Little icon I was looking for.

[Schultz]

Coming Soon

It's a safe guess that the tipping point will come soon. Note, the authors didn't say whether it's soon within this week, within a human lifetime, or within geologic timescales.

Precise language is a bitch, better avoid it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: SIR is a title

Media headlines say 'tipping point approaching! Yet the article states buried in its body the tipping point is 'as-yet-undetermined' and we need more research... Got to love things being blown out of all proportion.

The cynic in me wonders if someone had their budget cut in the recession and is after a bit of classic alarmism to scare people into providing more funding.

[Chimp]

Intensification of agriculture...

... and a retreat from agricultural production on marginal land, greatly increased rates of urbanisation, massive building out of nuclear power, and population declines resulting from the transformation of societies that can be observed worldwide...

And the job is a good one.

You listening, Greenpeace?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got two choices...

1. More world

2. Fewer people

Everything else is codswollop. So take your pick.

[SuperTim]

Re: You've got two choices...

Less people please. I hate people.

I would like to propose a heavy tax on people with more than 2 children. People who have more than 4 should be castrated/sterilised, and people who have 15 state-funded scrotebag oiks should be ground down into animal feed.

Too many people not giving a monkey about the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You've got two choices...

Are you supporting that bloke in Derby with sixteen kids, who allegedly took the public-spirited step of murdering five of them in a house fire?

[h4rm0ny]

Re: You've got two choices...

"I would like to propose a heavy tax on people with more than 2 children. People who have more than 4 should be castrated/sterilised, and people who have 15 state-funded scrotebag oiks should be ground down into animal feed."

A far, far more effective way of getting a population reduction is less discrimination against women in the workplace and greater educational opportunities all round. The greater sexual equality and work opportunities increase, the greater the reduction in birth rate so far (demonstrable throughout the West and elsewhere and logically guessable to anyone who pauses to think whether they would prefer to have an intellectually stimulating job that gives them lots of spare cash and some holiday time to spend it, or if they would prefer to try squeezing something the size of a grapefruit out of something the size of a lemon).

[Tom 38]

Re: You've got two choices...

I prefer the Drax approach, nerve gas the entire world from space, come back in 5 years.

[Aaron Em]

OK, SuperTimm, fair enough -

We'll grind you into bone meal first, though. What, some problem? Nonsense! If it's good enough for the goose, after all -- here, just jump in this hopper, let me turn on this motor, and very soon we'll all be enjoying the benefits of clearer air and a less polluted environment.

Well, no, not you of course, but then you're scum so who cares? We were going to mulch you and use you for fertilizer, but our chemists tell us there's way too much acidity and bitterness there to produce a plant anyone would want anything to do with, so we're just going to dump you in a landfill instead.

Seems to me that lots of people in the whole green, environmentalist, let's save this poor old planet that's only been around four and a half billion years and clearly can't see off an infestation of half-bright bald apes with delusions of grandeur, thing -- lots of these folks try to pour this stuff into whatever pre-existing hole in their life they feel needs filling. If it weren't this, it'd be PETA or Planned Parenthood or space exploration or non-profit medical care for the fuzzy-wuzzies of Upper Volta, or something.

[Tom 13]

Re: propose a heavy tax on people with more than 2 children.

I've got a better idea. Put the tax on the holier than thou bigots who want to limit other people's freedom, and convert all those who are willing to kill those people into some Soylent to send to China.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

?kill all humans? Wuz Re: You've got two choices...

Ok, it's a line from a cartoon...

Nature has a wy of keeping populations in check... To a point...

As the human race grows, the outbreaks of new or evolved viruses and penicillin resistant strains of bacteria also grow.

From a psychological perspective, populations that exceed the carrying capacity of their environments tend to disintegrate.

So I think we will see the human race's population plateau before that..

Unless you have a newer cheap energy sourceand a way to get us off this planet and in to space .....

[Tom 38]

Re: ?kill all humans? Wuz You've got two choices...

As the human race grows, the outbreaks of new or evolved viruses and penicillin resistant strains of bacteria also grow.

Citation? Sounds like bollocks to me. In 1918 the "Spanish flu" killed between 3 and 10% of the world population - between 50 and 130 million people - where as the latest flu pandemics have been relatively minor, like the 2009 swine flu pandemic which killed less than 20,000 worldwide.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ?kill all humans? Wuz You've got two choices...

Even without the citation, why bollocks? If virus evolution is the selection of randomly occurring mutations, statistically there will be more mutations if the pool is larger. Add to that humans moving into new areas and flitting around the globe. The world population has more than tripled since the first medicinal use of penicillin, so I would be very surprised if the occurrence of penicillin resistant bacteria hasn't grown since then.

The 1918 epidemic was the result of mass human movement (due to global warfare). A higher population density and greater human movement around the globe can only aid viruses. Likewise, the first case of AIDS known was a US sailor presenting inexplicable muscle wasting in the 1950s (tissue samples were preserved and found to HIV positive in the 1980s - National Geographic), so human travel was a likely factor.

It's true that the modern outbreaks of influenza haven't had the same impact, but at least have provided a good drill for scientists and authorities for when/if a big outbreak occurs. There are influenzas that are very deadly, and there are influenzas that spread very easily through the air, and so far they haven't got together...

[Nigel 11]

Influenza is a bad example

Influenza is an exception to most general rules about disease propagation.

It's anomalous because it can infect just about any creature with warm blood, rather than just one species. It is spread globally by migrating birds, even in times when humans hadn't worked out how to fly. It's also a fast-mutating virus. There are very many new strains every year, all busily adapting themselves to new species.

Flu is eventually its own antidote. As it mutates in a population, any strain which leaves its victims walking around despite being infected will have a huge advantage over a parent strain that isolates them in bed (or in a coffin). And because the strains are related, the less severe one spreads immunity against the deadlier. Flu evolves within a species to become more infectious but less serious. Were it not for the frequency with which it jumps between species, it would rapidly become no worse than a common cold.

One day, a scientist may have to decide whether to release a flu virus derived from a deadly one, engineered to be less deadly but more infectious.

[Tom 13]

Re: You've got two choices...

Malthus gave us that choice many billions of people ago. It was bullshit then and still is.

[Mitoo Bobsworth]

I am reminded...

... of an interesting quote from Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, in a 1988 interview with 'Discover' magazine

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination.

That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Many would have read this quote minus the last 3 sentences. However, even with those sentences included, this seminal statement gives me grave doubt as to the many claims as to the nature & causality of anthropogenic climactic change. To "spin" scientific inquiry & the quantification of such, as this quote suggests, opens the interpretation of such inquiry to immediate abuse & opportunism, no matter how well intentioned the sentiment of that statement may be.

For me, the frailties of humanity have all but smothered any ongoing rational & meaningful research & analyses of this incredibly complex system. Ratings & earnings driven media & PR spin, individual & group self-interest, demonstrable financial opportunism & speculation - these are just a few things that have prompted me to mistrust the many "authoritative" statements, issued on an almost daily basis, as to the "urgency" of our global situation.

[Turtle]

Schneiderism

"This 'double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.' Many would have read this quote minus the last 3 sentences."

I am very familiar with this statement, to the point that I use the term "Schneiderism" to refer to the practice of scientists lying for political reasons. I need to use it more often, really, as it defines a real and easily observable phenomenon.

The problem with Schneider's apologists attempting to use those three last sentences as if they somehow mitigate the statements preceding them, is that "being honest" is kind of an "all or nothing" thing. "The right balance is between being effective and being honest" simply means that sometimes scientists should be honest, but they don't have to be. He can sanctimoniously "hope to be both" but why anyone would give any credibility to anyone who thinks that scientists do not have to be honest all the time, is something beyond my ability to understand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I am reminded...

That quote explains a lot. Dr Schneider and others need to be reminded that the value of their public pronouncements is entirely founded on a belief in their integrity in that they are following the scientific process and are telling us what the science says.

They should not be concerned about the balance between 'between being effective and being honest', because 'being honest' is all they are ethically required to do. They should leave the 'being effective' bit to those that are allowed to have agendas.

I'm with turtle - "Schneiderism" ought to be used commonly to refer to this practice.

[Schultz]

The balance between 'between being effective and being honest'

"[The scientists] should not be concerned about the balance between 'between being effective and being honest', because 'being honest' is all they are ethically required to do."

The honest scientists may be an admirable and ethical creature, but he might not get another grant. Say hello to him, when you pass his new premises under the bridge.

The balance between honesty and hyperbole in science is not quite that simple: the money for science follows the big story, so if you can invent that (or follow a pre-existing one), you have it made. Most scientists are idealistic creatures, but they must find a delicate balance between doing science and selling science.

[Paul Crawford]

Re: I am reminded...

And the reason for doing so?

Because humans, as a generalisation, are a lazy self-centred bunch who will make little or no sacrifice unless it has an immediate gain/threat.

Give people an ounce of doubt and they will use that to get out of doing things, in particular, those difficult or unpopular decisions that politicians must do but still keep themselves on the gravy train.

And that is the dilemma, try to hold a reasoned argument with those who don't give a toss, are incapable of understanding science/statistics, or have pre-set views (e.g. religion) and you lose. Not because your data is out of agreement, but because the DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE that their actions are wrong/ill-advised/must be changed.

Or take on politicians at their own gain by spinning the facts to attention-grabbing scenarios and getting folk to sit up and take notice. Then once more to dismiss it because "its just spin" and not in their short-term interests.

Maybe skynet was right...

[Anonymous Coward]

@Schultz & Paul Crawford - Re: I am reminded...

While I agree with Schultz's observation that an honest scientist is not likely to flourish, one who goes for hyperbole will lose the most potent thing he/she has to persuade the more knowledgeable/intelligent listeners - trust.

I also get Paul Crawford's point that scientists can't have a reasoned argument with those that don't give a toss. But that is ignoring the fact that in reality they only have to argue with people who do care about the science and what it is saying - ie the mass of intelligent non-experts who read and comment on this stuff (like our commentards). It is they who in practise can persuade the 'lazy self-centred' bunch that there is something up. Unfortunately the hyperbole just provokes a negative response in many of such people.

As it stands, scientists are in real danger of being lumped in with politicians as a class of people whose self interest is assumed to over-ride the facts.

[Zombie Womble]

Re: @Schultz & Paul Crawford - I am reminded...

"The balance between honesty and hyperbole in science is not quite that simple: the money for science follows the big story, so if you can invent that (or follow a pre-existing one), you have it made. Most scientists are idealistic creatures, but they must find a delicate balance between doing science and selling science."

So where does this lead?

Once one group had made distortions to get funding then competing groups will feel bound to make slightly more sweeping distortions next time. This cycle will continue with larger and larger groups of scientists all distorting the facts to greater and greater degree to secure some of the limited monies available. Sooner or later their 'findings' will have no tangible basis in reality as we see with the '27 billion population' claim

That isn't science, it's lobbying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Schultz & Paul Crawford - I am reminded...

@Zombie Womble etc.

It's not the scientists: It's the managers. Most scientists are quite honest, but they answer to a manager who isn't always a scientist and is often removed from the facts. It's the managers who try to sort out the budgets, but where they don't understand the underlying science they make things up, and that's where the corruption comes in.

It's becoming common place for this to happen, and not just in science. Here, I'm an IT specialist complete with years of experience, qualifications and successful projects. My boss used to be a developer but these days he spends most of his time in meetings, but at least he still understands what we're talking about... most of the time... His boss, however, has budget control... and hasn't a clue about IT. Seriously - they see something shiny and they just have to have it, even if it's utterly useless...

[Tom 13]

Re: I am reminded...

I've had many an honest debate with religious people. Never had one with an anti-religious bigot. Probably because the religious people, even those who aren't following the one true God, actually believe honesty is a moral imperative for which there are eternal consequences rather than some hypothetical normative construct used to reach an end.

[NomNomNom]

Re: I am reminded...

what Schneider is saying is nothing to do with grants. You get grants even if you do really dull work.

What he's saying is that if scientists see a threat, they might want to warn people. They (all) aren't robotic calculators. If they want to communicate effectively they have to balance effectiveness with honesty.

Naive honesty can lead to ineffective communication.

For example a few years ago the climate scientist Dr Phil Jones was asked, via a skeptic injecting the question to a journalist, whether there had been statistically significant warming since 1995. Phil Jones gave the naive honest answer that no there hadn't.

Of course very few people understand what statistical significance is so this gave climate deniers a license to go around claiming that Phil Jones had admitted warming had stopped in 1995. Which wasn't what he claimed, but was a very effective distortion.

Sometimes you have to consider that honest words can be abused and therefore honest words can be ineffective, even damaging. To be effective you sometimes have to omit information and doubts to scupper the chances of them being twisted and exaggerated. Phil Jones for example would have been better off not answering the question, "doing a politician" and dodging the loaded question.

[Turtle]

@NomNomNom: Re: I am reminded...

In order to defend dishonest scientists, you have chosen Phil Jones, of ClimateGate infamy. You could not have picked a more dishonest scientist - or made a more appropriate choice..

[NomNomNom]

Re: @NomNomNom: I am reminded...

I haven't defended "dishonest scientists". Your premise is wrong.

I'd like to know what Phil Jones has done dishonestly, in your opinion.

I've given an example of the dishonesty of climate deniers. You haven't provided any example.

[Turtle]

Re: @NomNomNom: I am reminded...

"I haven't defended 'dishonest scientists'. Your premise is wrong. I'd like to know what Phil Jones has done dishonestly, in your opinion. I've given an example of the dishonesty of climate deniers. You haven't provided any example."

I said "ClimateGate'. If you think that all the dishonesty, manipulativeness, and effort put into gaming the way science works, as revealed in the ClimateGate emails, is anything less than a complete and utter disgrace to any institution purporting to be an educational institution, and if you think that the behavior shown in those emails is acceptable behavior for anyone with any pretensions to any reputation as a scientist, then you will have to explain why.

Personally, I would call the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia to be a hotbed of scientific dishonesty. And if you want to continue to defend dishonest scientists such as Phil Jones and his ilk, don't let anyone stop you... but don't deny that you are doing it, either.

[Turtle]

Clever.

"state shifts can exhibit hysteresis, meaning that the shifts themselves can be separated in time from their causes"

So the theory can be right even if the effects are separated from the causes by, oh, maybe centuries. Very convenient from insulating the science from empirical falsification. Or insulating specific scientists from having to admit that they are incompetent and/or dishonest.

And, typically, although more study is needed to understand the many factors impinging on the situation, somehow it is already known that the situation is catastrophic and calls for alarmism and its attendant political agenda.

It seems that humanity's fate is going to be like having to listen to that virulent racist Paul Ehrlich over, and over, and over, and over...

[bill 36]

There are too many people on the planet

IF it is true that climate change is man made.

So as all good problem solvers know, fixing the root cause and not the symptoms, is the ONLY way to fix a problem.

The trouble is that there are far too many people who do not want to face up to this unpalatable fact. Scientists included.

[osseo]

Re: There are too many people on the planet

It's not a fact, it's your opinion. What would the right number of people be, and how do you know?

[PlacidCasual]

Deniers, really?

It's a bit rich to ask people not to get their knickers in a twist whilst at the same time slinging mud yourself.

[Martin Budden]

Nicely written.

This Rik Myslewski fella should do all El Reg's climate articles, he's done a good job of explaining a very wordy Nature article in an open-minded way. It's a plesant change from the heavily one-sided stuff I've seen too much of round here. Keep up the good work Rik!

[Dr Stephen Jones]

Re: Nicely written.

"He's a bedwetter like me"

And never let facts get in the way of an eco-panic.

[Ken Hagan]

Re: Nicely written.

Be fair now. This Rik fella should do *half* of El Reg's climate articles.

[Tom 13]

Re: Nicely written.

So then you'd be one them there mind-set-in-concrete Warmists like Rik.

[Mad Mike]

Population

This all comes down to one fact nobody likes. The greater the population on the earth (human that is), the worse any problem that may exist will be. We'll need more resources just to support the greater number of people. So, the first driver must be to limit or reduce overall world population. You can then look at distribution etc. A lesser population will by definition require fewer resources, including CO2 emissions etc.etc.

However, very few are willing to face this blindingly obvious fact and just stick their heads in the sand. Most politicians wouldn't dream of calling for fewer and fewer children to this end as their economic models require an ever expanding economy (e.g. growth). if you don't have growth over the longterm, basically most of the worlds economy doesn't work. Whilst you can be more efficient, ultimately to keep expanding the economy needs more workforce.

Until we get leaders that can stop looking at the next election and try to do some unpalatable things for the good of the country and the world, we'll not get anywhere.

[Dave 126]

Re: Population

Its easier to have just two children if you know that they are very likely to reach adulthood. In many areas of the world, this is far from certain, so you are going to hedge your bets even if you do have access to contraception.

[Mad Mike]

Re: Population

To an extent I agree, but if survival of offspring is an issue, having more and more doesn't necessarily make it more likely one will survive, especially now. If you're in a drought and famine, having more children does not increase the chances, unless you pick your favourite and give them all the food, leaving the rest to starve. Most give a share to all, decreasing the chances of survival for all.

It may be hard, but it's something we have to face.

[Tom 13]

Re: Population

If you are reading this article, odds are neither you nor your government are part of the problem. Odds are even greater that neither you nor your government are in ANY position to influence it. What is truly ironic is that the quickest way to get to where you claim you want to get goes through the two means people who post your kind of crap on message boards are least likely to support: 1) unfettered capitalism to release their stunted ability to provide for themselves and 2) the use of fossil fuels to get there. Because it isn't just access to birth control and medicine. There's a whole host of other changes that have to happen with the mind set and they only happen when people know they are individuals who can make decisions that affect their lives.

[Benjamin 4]

Unpopular it may be, but we need a ban on all births anywhere for the next 15 or twenty years, get all females on birth control (patch or something they can't 'forget' to take) at 13. That's about the only way we can adequately control the population reasonably quickly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be ridiculous

Seriously. Population reduction in general will take a lot of harsh decisions to enforce, trying to ban ALL births would be completely impossible, and would have all kinds of unintended effects.

More sensible options include:

A ban on IVF, everywhere.

Ban christian missionairies in Africa

Approval of contraception by the Catholic Church

Then you have to start getting nasty:

end all cancer research and research in geriatric diseases and life extension

Stop all research into malaria prevention, abandon typhoid innoculation programs etc.

Completely stop all immigration from developing countries into "advanced" nations, and stop all foreign aid to developing nations.

And so it goes.

Horrible isn't it? Anyone going to sign up to that? Because nasty as they are, they're the kinds of strategies that will need to be employed if you want to significantly reduce human population. On the other hand, we're quite clever apes when you get down to it; maybe if we stop thinking we live in a closed system we can survive with a bit more style than cutting off granny's chemotherapy.

[Loyal Commenter]

Re: Don't be ridiculous (@AC 09:23)

You seem to be selectively ignoring some facts, such as:

- as nations become more developed, the birth rate declines (hence the 'crisis' in pensions in countries such as the UK which has a growing ageing population as a result).

- preventing or curing infectious diseases, as well as geriatric diseases reduces the economic burden on nations, but increasing the 'useful' portion of the population, allowing for greater economic development, and the concomitant reduction in birth rates.

- a large portion of 'immigration from developing countries into "advanced" nations' comes about as a result of displacement caused by warfare. Maybe banning the production and sale of weapons on an international scale is a better idea - even if it is 'politically unwise' to say so in the UK.

I wouldn't go as far as banning IVF, but I certainly wouldn't spend taxpayer's money on it. If a couple is well-off enough to afford it, then fair enough. Otherwise, there are always plenty of children awaiting adoption.

And I think you could probably combine your second and third points into a convenient banning of the Catholic church, an organisation that has more than its fair share of pain and suffering in the world to answer for, both physically and psychologically.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something else that Catholic and other churches believe in

is no sex outside marriage.

[Tom 13]

@Loyal Commenter: He had me going for a minute too.

Re-read his last paragraph. He's spelling out the inevitable logical requirements of the Malthusian argument so you can see just how ugly they are before he gets to his real point. Because no one who support individual liberty can in good conscious ask to have the government impose its religious views on the people.

[Dave 126]

Unpopular, and has, when been implemented in the past, subject to the laws of unintended consequences. India sees its current economic strength as being in part due to 'one child per parent' policies failing, and in China cultural factors (your sons live with you and help you in your old age, your daughter live with somebody else's son) led to more boys being born - many of whom have little chance of finding a wife (but I guess that more adult men than women results in fewer children than vice versa, and probably motivates the men to achieve more to stand out from fellow suitors).

Ideally, we would achieve fairly constant population by education and better living standards and medical care, as has happened in many 'Western' countries. Unfortunately, the resources required for everyone on this planet to enjoy Western 'standards' would currently require several planets.

People would not vote for Benjimin 4's proposal, so I can't see how it would be bought about in a democracy. I am curious as to how he sees it being enacted.

[Anonymous Coward]

So this has bugger all to do with maintaining their big fat research grants then?

[NomNomNom]

How does that work?

Did he wake up one day and think "hmm maybe today I should write something to the media that recommends more research so that through a chain of events the funding bodies in a few years time will give scientists in my field more funding"?

Did he call up the other scientists and say "hey I have this great plan" and they said "go for it bob, that sounds like a great scheme".

Sounds just a little far fetched to me.

[Peter Dawe]

Party While You Can

Even if we knew what to do and when, there is no political will to fix anything!

So the only two strategies that are rational are:-

1) Prepare for the worse

2) Party while you can

BTW, Have you a 6 month food store?

Most people spend £100s insuring their house for fire on a 1 in 100year probability

In the last 100 years there were two world wars... and rationing. And 6 months basic rations costs less than £200 ( Plus another £200 for the beer)

[Anonymous Coward]

The paper argues that it's humans who are currently the prime biosphere stressors.

The Latinos they've mutated, and they're heeeeaaating uuuuuup the planettttttt!!!!!

[Mickey Finn]

The point has already tipped...

Anyone who has a window, should take a look outside…

It's really s*it out there.

Don't talk to me about global warming!

[Fading]

Computer Models.....

I was running a computer model the other night - no matter what variables I changed the Reapers still destroyed life in the known universe.

Just because a model fits at the time (looks realistic) doesn't mean it has any predictive abililties.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do something.

Back in 1981 there was a book called "Entropy: a new world view" I'm not going to defend the central focus on the laws of thermodynamics but the facts about energy use and its consequences were startling then. I remember reading about 40 humans in the developing world fed a year on a single Americans air-conditioning bill. Back then we fixed things (rather than throwing away) and Air-con was rare in the UK so it seemed a bit fantastic, now we are at the forefront of the energy ignorance and any concept of moderation is treated as fanciful posturing and counter progressive. We are in the asylum setting fire to the roof arguing over whether that is a good or bad thing.

I have made choices over the years in line with personal responsibility on energy use, where possible reduce. I have travelled less than 100 motorised miles a year for the last four and half years.

It's not really a mystery that changing energy from one form to another on massive scale causes consequences we have become lazy stupid and self obsessed monkeys.

[hugo tyson]

Recommendations good regardless of climate

I'm skeptical about both what the politicians say we should do, and about the predictive power of models based on cherry-picked data, about climate change, but I don't think anyone would argue against the proposals for:

* reducing world population,

* reducing per-capita resource use,

* reducing the role of fossil fuels,

* improving energy efficiency,

* increasing the efficiency of food production and distribution,

* "and enhancing efforts to manage as reservoirs of biodiversity and ecosystem services, both in the terrestrial and marine realms, the parts of Earth's surface that are not already dominated by humans."

since all of these make us less likely to *run out of things*. Even totally absent climate change, they're a good idea. No?

[the-it-slayer]

Re: Recommendations good regardless of climate

I seriously would back those proposals any day of the week. With anything in life, there's always a limit and going over that limit breaks things.

Although, is there anyone on this planet would would drive such notions above? That's the problem. Europe can't even agree/share a economic burden created by themselves and the G8 summit is as useful as a chocolate teapot because all their meetings come to nothing. All countries are out for themselves and that's the nature of this planet currently. To get any agreement across the world would mean compromises. Currently, I can't see anyone willing to do it. Even us as a country (UK) would set the example, our example would mean nothing when the Americas and Asia are continuing to grow at a rate like we did in the peak of our industrial revolution.

I just wish our own government wouldn't use climate change as a taxation method currently to just back onto a global trend about being scared of the earth's health. Being one of the youngest adult generations now living, I wish I could leave a lasting impact for my future kids/grandkids rather than just sitting on the problem which I feel most governments I doing currently.

[Surprised here that I'm talking sensibly for a change]

[Livinglegend]

And the next one please?

First it was Global Warming, when that turned out rubbish predictions it became Climate Change. Now that is found to be rubbish, we have:

Blast of trumpets.....Climate Disruption.

And the next one will be???

[Real Ale is Best]

Solution

What we need is zombies, skeletons, spiders that come out at night and kill people.

That should keep the population down.

The people sneaking up to you and then blowing up, we appear to be managing already :-/

[Jim Carter]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating.

Bugger the climate change, we don't know enough to figure out what is going on there yet. Further research is needed.

However, what strikes me is, it makes sense to making our society more resource efficient, as we only have so much land, energy and resources to go around.

As with other things, we're living beyond our means, financially (so we're told) and ecologically as well, if you look at the damage over-fishing does to the sea, deforestation to the land, and the over-use of well, everything.

Anthropogenic climate change or not, things cannot continue as they are.

[Uncle Slacky]

Re: I've said this before, but it bears repeating.

Reminds me of that cartoon - "What if it's all a hoax and we make a better world for nothing?"

[Ken Hagan]

Re: I've said this before, but it bears repeating.

What if it is all well-intentioned but wrong and we end up *not* fixing what is really broken?

Sorry I can't point you at a cartoon.

[wowfood]

Video games have the answer

Since the problem is caused by us humans breeding like mad, the first thing we need to do is slow the birth rate. Solution? We need to cause a genophage similar to that from mass effect.

Second part of the problem, it will hit us with little to no warning, and we have no idea what form "it" will take. Solution? Suvival Valuts ala Fallout

[Loyal Commenter]

More to the point...

"Before the climate-change deniers among our beloved Reg readership get their knickers in a bunch, know that the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are only one of many factors that are of concern to Barnosky and his 21 coauthors."

What about the climate-change deniers writing for El Reg? Or have they been told to stop selectively quoting cherry-picked pieces of research out of context in order to misrepresent the scientific consensus?

[mhenriday]

Alas, they have not -

LP just posted today, referring to a recent piece in «Science» in such a way as to, without ever explicitly saying so, make it quite clear to the initiated (wink, wink) that continuing to pour out the CO2 today has absolutely no effect whatever on global temperature levels (which, of course, according to LP aren't rising anyway). Whatever would we do without LP and his trusty collegue AO to guide us throught the fearsome thicket created by so-called «scientific investigations» carried out by «hippies» ?...

Henri

[General Pance]

Deniers, ye shall burn in Hell for eternity

We must heed the prophecy. End of Days is upon us.

Those amongst us who have sinned. Those amongst us who given birth to the beast that is the baby human. Ye shall burn in Hell for eternity.

For none is more guilty than the woman who brings upon the Earth the pestilence that is the human being. Who by its biological nature breathes out the very poison that is killing our planet.

Carbon, my friends, is the evil by which the Earth shall be delivered to the Devil. And ye who create it with your motor vehicles and your electric lights, ye shall be punished.

I urge you to repent before all is lost.

The only path to salvation is through flagellation in the form of taxation.

We must pay more. More for everything. And worry. Worry about everything.

It is the word of our prophets.

[Philip Lewis]

Re: Deniers, ye shall burn in Hell for eternity

You forgot "breathing" in that list!

[itzman]

Global tipping points..

Have always been just around the corner, just like commercial fusion reactors.

Tell you what, I'll take the tipping point if I can have the reactors as well.

[Ken MAC]

My Personal island\Planet

Here's an interesting sum to do

Take the Earths surface area 510 Million sqkm divided by 7 Billion peple gives about 72,857 sqm each,

Which allowing for 70/30 split sea\land gives each of us an island about 167 m dia surrounded by a donut of sea 67 m wide..

And we haven't even allowed for mountains deserts, ice and other "uninhbitable\non-productive" land which eats into our share

Just to complete the picture if the atmosphere wasn't squidgy and was the same density from ground to space it would be about 8km or 5miles thick.

Good news is there's plenty of water cos the average sea level depth is nearly 4km

Now for the final twist population growth is about a million people every four days, which to give the newcomers an equal and fair share means my personal island (land area only) is dissapearing at the rate of about 0.78 sqm a day

or in old money just under a square inch a minute all day every day..

All corrections gratefully accepted just in case I made some dumb error...

MAC

[JeffyPooh]

Obviously false...

"...43 per cent of the earth's land having been converted to agricultural and urban use..."

Obviously false. I doubt it's even half that.

[sisk]

Good suggestions regardless

•reducing world population,

Who would argue that there are simply too many of us on the planet? We're looking at problems that have nothing to do with climate change if the population keeps growing at the current estimated rate (though that 27 billion figure is ludicrous--we'd have widespread starvations long before we approached that number).

•reducing per-capita resource use,

Again, just common sense, at least for those of us living in the first world. We use way more than our fair share.

•reducing the role of fossil fuels,

Let's rephrase that: reducing our dependence on a very finite and increasingly expensive resource.

•improving energy efficiency,

A must if we're ever going to become a type 1 civilization, even if fossil fuels were an infinate and cheap resource.

•increasing the efficiency of food production and distribution,

A must if we're ever going to end world hunger.

•"and enhancing efforts to manage as reservoirs of biodiversity and ecosystem services, both in the terrestrial and marine realms, the parts of Earth's surface that are not already dominated by humans."

I'd argue that we owe this to the planet. Between over hunting and habitat loss how many species have we driven to extinction or near extinction?

[Testy]

The only answer to all the problems Soylent Green.

How about Home Brew and Soylent Green, solve the population problem and satisfies world hunger, think of the take aways, we could have a British a bit fatty and slightly stodgy, Chinese small snacks, Indian takeway that delivers itself. It's endless an American that can baste itself in it's own fat. And lets not just pick on the poor and downtrodden roast a Bank manager today self marinated in expensive wines and cognacs....Solves so many problems..

[Enric Martinez]

Climate Lobby nonsense

It's all nonsense from the climate lobby!!

It's a generally known fact that there where fabricated graphics and emails were intercepted. We can therefore infer that the emails do exist. I have never seen one, but I have a friend of a friend who claims to have seen a female email with to cubs roaming near his hut in the Catskills.

But the green lobby wants us to believe all this crap about climate and orbits and stuff while we all know that it's absolutely not true. I will only believe that such things as the climate or the orbits exist when I see one with my own eyes!

What I still fail to understand is what the green lobby actually wants... that we all dress in green as in the Wizard of Oz?

Well, I wish you all a happy weekend and don't forget to adjust your tin foil hats... and mind the black helicopters and the chemtrails!!

[John A Blackley]

Woe! Oh woe!

I'll be dead in around 25 years so I don't give much of a hoot about rising seas and falling biodiversity.

I do wish all the contenders in the "The earth is ending - no it isn't" debate would make their stuff a little more entertaining to read, tho'.

[Greg 5]

G

I suggest doing nothing. It'll all work out in the end; geological time permitting. I've always vicariously fancied having any surviving offspring (yea unto the nth generation) live in a brutally hot/cold/wet/dry environment under a tribal or feudal regime, assuming they can find anyone to be in a tribe with. I'm sure cockroaches and rats are nutritious and tasty, if that's all there is?

Anyhow... So-long and thanks for all the fish!

[mhenriday]

Not to worry !

The Reg - courtesy of AO and LP - have conclusively shown that people like Anthony D. Barnosky, Elizabeth A. Hadly, Jordi Bascompte, Eric L. Berlow, James H. Brown, Mikael Fortelius, Wayne M. Getz, John Harte, Alan Hastings, Pablo A. Marquet, Neo D. Martinez, Arne Mooers, Peter Roopnarine, Geerat Vermeij, John W. Williams, Rosemary Gillespie, Justin Kitzes, Charles Marshall, Nicholas Matzke, David P. Mindell, Eloy Revilla & Adam B. Smith are all «hippies», whose views on these matters are to be disregarded in favour of those promoted by such experts as AO and LP themselves....

Henri

[Sean Timarco Baggaley]

Re: Not to worry !

What are you, 12?

Of course, you have ample evidence to prove that groups of 20, or more, scientists are never, ever, wrong about anything at all, ever.

And, naturally, you are of the opinion that the right and proper thing for everyone to do is to just sit back and do as mummy scientist and daddy scientist tell us, so we need never worry our pretty little airheads about anything at all, ever.

Then we can all die happy, watching Karaoke Factor, while handing most of our earnings to those wonderful people to invest in Socially Useful things like pointless giant concrete windmills, killing the nuclear energy industry—the only form of electrical energy generation that actually makes any damned sense in the UK and many parts of the rest of the planet—and subsidising woefully inefficient solar panels.

Can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking? It must be truly amazing stuff.

[Omgwtfbbqtime]

Re: Not to worry !

"What are you, 12?"

That's generous of you, my six year old son could form a better argument than that given by Henri.

[ElReg!comments!Pierre]

future "tipping point" as a scientific argument

The "common sense" conclusions are not to be argued with. Pollution is bad, M'Kay?

That goes without saying.

But the "we can't see any effect today but once the tipping point is reached we're doomed" is incredibly bad science. Actually it's not science at all, it's baseless fearmongering.

Photosynthetic organisms today are litterally starving by lack of CO2. CO2 is currently the limiting factor for photosynthesis, any serious plant (or algae) biologist will tell you that. It doesn't mean that pollution is good. It, however, means that the buffering capacity of the biosphere is massively underestimated by the fearmongerers. They also tend to forget a little thing called "albedo" which has a major effect on how Mommy Earth deals with incoming solar energy (much more important than that "greenhouse effect" that gets much media attention". Basically deserts reflect a lot more energy than oceans or "planted" areas (be it forests, cultivated ares, and everything inbetween). When you reduce ice- or snow-covered areas, you decrease albedo, surface warms but the greenhouse effect is decreased. Concurrently, you might ingrease (or decrease, the numbers are not clear on that) the area of "hot" deserts (such as Sahara, areas in Central/ North America -Mexico, Arizona, ...-, large areas of China etc) which increases albedo, decreases the surface temperature, and increase the influence of the greenhouse effect. In turn, the oceans, which are by far the biggest store of CO2 on earth, do tend to release CO2 when surface temperature rises, and absorb more when temperatures go down. That's only a direct effect of CO2 solubility in water. Phytoplankton in surface waters show increased photosynthesis when CO2 rises, which has a buffering effect. But CO2 also increases water acidity (decrease in pH), with more acidic pH leading to realease of CO2 from accumulated seashells (basically, chalk in the making) as well as possibly slowing down seashel formation in the live biomass. No one, absolutely noone, nobody, not a soul on Earth, can pretend with a semblancy of likelyhood that they can put figures on all that. Conjectures and supputations is all we can deal with for the moment. Political pressure has a very deleterious effect on the advancement of knowledge in that area -in ANY area. Unfortunately, that nascent area of science is under overwhelming political pressure, even more so than biomedical research.

I am not arguiing one way or another, my personnal "carbon footprint" is pretty modest (but that's coincidental to my quite frugal lifestyle, not the result of a militant AGW position). All I am saying is, please let the scientists do their job. Socio-political pressure is ADVERSE to scientific progress. And yes, I do have a horse in that race. In the biomedical field rather than in the climate field, though.

[bert_fe]

sad

I have never seen so many hand waving 'experts' in the one place! May your lack of mathematical and physics knowledge only be exceeded by your ignorance. I have never read more pathetically thought through arguments than this lot including the original article. Sorry, wrong, it is every time this sort of nonsense is pushed by the idiots who will not look at the evidence that I wonder how smart humans really are?! Bert

[Monkeywrench]

To sum up all of their recommendations...

"reducing world population, reducing per-capita resource use, reducing the role of fossil fuels, improving energy efficiency, increasing the efficiency of food production and distribution, "and enhancing efforts to manage as reservoirs of biodiversity and ecosystem services, both in the terrestrial and marine realms, the parts of Earth's surface that are not already dominated by humans."

All that needs to be done is have the government take control of every aspect of everyone's lives. No thank you!