Society Has To Collapse To Stop Global Warming A new report from the University of Utah

[rvalkass 5]

A scientist at the University of Utaah has decided to model climate change and the economy as a physics problem, and has come up with some startling conclusions. For example, attempting to conserve energy actually results in a net increase in energy consumption as the economy booms and energy use increases. Also, throughout history, population growth has had very little effect on energy use and climate change - energy use depends only on world economic activity. Finally, to keep CO₂ levels as they are today, the world needs to build the equivalent of one nuclear power plant each and every day.

 

The models created by this study fly in the face of current climate and economic models, so both climate scientists and economists disagree with it. The point they have the most trouble with is the idea that attempting to conserve energy simply allows the world economy to experience accelerated growth and therefore consume more energy than if you didn't try to conserve energy. However the idea isn't new - it was originally suggested in 1865, and is known as Jevons' Paradox.

 

Studying physics, I personally find this story very interesting, as most of what we learn is based around models of what is happening in the real world. With something as difficult to track and predict as the climate, who can say which of these models is right until we already know the answer?

 

More information: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/91123083704.htm

[Baniboy 3]

Yes, exactly!Climate change is unstoppable. It's too late and it's too hard. We can't change. This is a normal biological cycle, let me explain:Let's think there is a population of voles in the forest. Now this is a small population. There is enough resources(food and territory) for this population. The result is population growth obviously. Now the population is much larger. It's consuming more food than the environment is producing, there is less space, the populations of predators who feed on the voles have grown to match the vole population and there are diseases and other crappy things. The result is that the population comes crashing down. And then, the same thing starts all over again.The same thing is happening to us, as we have already gone over that line. We are consuming more than the ecological(and by this word I don't mean in all the stupid sense hippies and Al Gore is promoting this word, but the actual meaning of it in scientific sense) locker should be consuming to keep the ecosystem in balance. The problem is very embarrassing, we are no smarter than the vole.There will always be idiots like Al Gore trying to make some $$$, €€€ and ??? on every disaster. Fun thing about disasters: The rich become even more rich and the poor just get more poor. Even the scientists are developing "eco-friendly" crap just to make a quick buck.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Baniboy (see edit history)

[webishqiptar 0]

The models created by this study fly in the face of current climate and economic models, so both climate scientists and economists disagree with it. The point they have the most trouble with is the idea that attempting to conserve energy simply allows the world economy to experience accelerated growth and therefore consume more energy than if you didn't try to conserve energy. However the idea isn't new - it was originally suggested in 1865, and is known as Jevons' Paradox.

Well this seems a certain paradox. Could you please explain in detail, how is it possible to try to conserve energy and the result tell that you are consuming more and more. I always liked these kind of theories and models. Maybe its worth reading further.

[inverse_bloom 0]

That is very interesting but not totally unexpected. I guess that "is" the problem as rvalkass said "who knows which model to believe until we already know the answer". I guess the question this brings up for me - Do we as a world society have an organization focused on sifting through the B.S to come to some solid conclusions regarding all evidence and ideas already put forth?. The way it seems now, it is predominately people putting forth all these hypotheses with their own agendas, which ultimately drags us away from a clearer answer and is actually in a way counter productive. Surely we must have enough information today to make a heavily weighted decision, to decide how much effect we have on climate change. If the world population are given the truth in a "clear" answer, then the optimist in me says that they would take that on board whatever it may be. Too much politics is involved on this subject "of all things" and "could" be a fatal mistake for society.

Edited November 29, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)

[rvalkass 5]

Well this seems a certain paradox. Could you please explain in detail, how is it possible to try to conserve energy and the result tell that you are consuming more and more. I always liked these kind of theories and models. Maybe its worth reading further.

It's known as Jevons' Paradox, and is a theory in economics and business studies. It describes a vicious cycle of resource usage. As a society comes up with ways to use a resource more efficiently (such as creating energy efficient electrical goods), you lower the effective cost of using that resource to complete the same task. As the cost falls, economic demand increases, accelerating growth, which increases demand, which accelerates growth... Whether overall usage increases or decreases depends on what the ratio of cost to demand looks like. If cost falls by half, does demand increase by more than double or less than double? If demand more than doubles then you're using more energy while trying to conserve it.

That is very interesting but not totally unexpected. I guess that "is" the problem as rvalkass said "who knows which model to believe until we already know the answer". I guess the question this brings up for me - Do we as a world society have an organization focused on sifting through the B.S to come to some solid conclusions regarding all evidence and ideas already put forth?. The way it seems now, it is predominately people putting forth all these hypotheses with their own agendas, which ultimately drags us away from a clearer answer and is actually in a way counter productive.

Until we have some way to prove them, each theory is as valid as the next. Creating a group to sift through the theories would only produce their favourite, which would not necessarily be the right one.

[mahesh2k 0]

What about terraform concept ? Is there any discussion happened in this context ? I mean we have found water on moon and mars is under search radar. So is there any possibility for teraform ? If you have any links regarding the teraform let me know.

[Lyon2 0]

It does not need a rocket science degree or diploma to figure it out what is going on with our own planet, the global warm phenomenon is caused by 2 variables only: . The sun destructive forces The sun is getting bigger all the time, the sun will reach earth in some thousands or million years in the future, i do not know for certain how much time the planet earth has until the sun reaches it or at least it causes it to destroy, but we know that the sun is getting stronger and closer by the minute. . The pollutionI am not a rocket scientist or Albert Einstein, although my second name is Albert (Alberto in Portuguese), pollution causes the destruction of the ozone layer, the pollution from fires, industry factories, cars, and everything that pollutes the air, and so on, that causes to destroy our only protection against the UV rays, and so that is our own fault, not natures fault, and it is predictable that when the ozone layer is destroyed, the sun will seem to be more strong and powerful.Global warming is caused by the pollution and sun, but mostly pollution because it destroys the ozone layer which protects us from the sun powerful forces, and when the ozone layers disappear, the glaciers will melt down which will cause tsunamis, well, the sea will reclaim a lot of earth that once was his, and the most affected parts of the continents will be the coast of every continent and country that has a coast by the sea.----------Why the united states of america and other well known powers of this planet do not do a thing about global warming, because there is nothing to do, the pollution will be made regardless what everyone wants, we need to make pollution in order to survive, and we do not have the necessary technology nor technology in place to deal with pollution, even the factories have some technology to stop some pollution but it does not stop it all.It is a matter of time until our ozone layer is totally destroyed, it is a matter of time only, but we could use the time left to come up with technology to protect us when our ozone layer is completely destroyed, but even that is not being done or researched, and that we can do something, but no government does because they do not care, WE DO NOT CARE, unless we would not use our cars, we would not fire wood in our living room, women would not use sprays for their air, et cetera et cetera et cetera, nobody cares with our planet, it is the human being nature, do not confuse yourself, only some of us really and truly cares, but it is a waist of time because the majority does not care, so it is a lost battle, nothing else.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Lyon2 (see edit history)

[inverse_bloom 0]

I remember an article contained in an edition of Scientific American about a year or two ago where they proposed a valid plan to convert America's main source of energy to that of solar. The plan was hypothetical but very well thought out. It basically had a plan to have this equipment occupy a portion of America (Nevada possibly? I cant remember) it would cost 50 billion U.S dollars to implement over something like 20 - 50 years.It would have an initial outlay and then the American population would contribute like an extra percentage of some thing like 50 % on top of their electric bill, for the project to continue to grow. The argument was that the cost associated with the plan would get cheaper as more and more infrastructure was put in (as it has less maintenance costs then current sources of energy). The result of the 20 - 50 year period would result in cheaper electricity bills for cleaner energy. In light of the current economic debacle, id anticipate people would only scoff at such an idea. But when things pick up we may very well have a responsibility to ourselves to take up these sort of sustainable initiatives. If some scientists are to be believed, we have already reached the point where damage cannot be undone, if that is true how far will we go till our own demise is irreversible in the next millennium?@ rvalkass post 5 - Yeah i know what you mean, but i was thinking more in terms of a stringently controlled group. Say you have a collection of scientists, physicists, mathematicians, geologists, economists etc lead by leading thought experts. Their aim would be to filter through all current information and disregard any information that doesn't come close enough within a certain "objective threshold". By that i mean if it doesn't seem like it will form objective data then disregard it.This is not necessarily to see what individual hypothesis and research are valid but only to form an answer the big question "how much harm are contributing to climate change". Just an "indication" we cant form exact conclusions, but more so a "good idea" based on what we do know so far. But it is politics that gets in the way of this happening, for one thing such a project may be considered by some as a waste of money just answering such a simple but crucial question.

Edited November 30, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)

[jlhaslip 4]

I don't have a Physics background past secondary School, but I have a Geography/Economics background from University.I am of the opinion that the net effect of Industrialisation has got us to where we are today. Major sources of Pollution need to stop, the Planet needs to work towards reducing the population, and the lifestyles we lead need to be adjusted. downward from the North American levels currently in place. Certainly there are places on the Earth not at the same level, and it would be great if those parts of the world could be fed, housed and clothed better that they are at present.Read about the Carrying Capacity of this Planet. If the entire world's population's lifestyle was to be adjusted to the "North American/European" standards, we would need about 4 Planets with Earth's resources. And those statistics are several years old. I'm sure that the requirement has increased since I read them. Clearly there is too much demand for Resources on this feeble Globe and that is without considering the potential for damage caused by an increasing population.I don't know what the precise answer is. Maybe if the Industrialised Countries placed a Global Tax on Profits based on the damages that Companies cause, we could accumulate the dollars and support education, health and remedial programs against those damages. Since it is the Industrialised processes causing the damage, the benefactors of that process should pay for the fixes.Just my opinion.

[andresf91 0]

I don't know what the precise answer is. Maybe if the Industrialised Countries placed a Global Tax on Profits based on the damages that Companies cause, we could accumulate the dollars and support education, health and remedial programs against those damages. Since it is the Industrialised processes causing the damage, the benefactors of that process should pay for the fixes.

We could do something similar with the Tobin tax: a suggested tax on all trade of currency across borders.

amed after the economist James Tobin, the tax is intended to put a penalty on short-term speculation in currencies. The original tax rate he proposed was 1%, which was subsequently lowered to between 0.1% and 0.25%.

Wikipedia.org The Economist (Mexican version) reports: British Premier said that G-20 should discuss a better social and economic contract which reflected worldwide responsibility of financial institutions to society. "Among the proposal, an insurance tax which reflects systemic risks leads, the creation of a fund, dispositions on capital, or a tax on international financial transactions".

[room2593 0]

It's nice to know that science backs itself up.I mean, seriously? There have been climate fluctuations for years - I doubt that humans will have too much impact on the global climate (more than say: the ocean, which produces at least 90 percent of the co2 that the earth makes every year).There was an ice age (of course) but there was also a hot age (which many people may not have heard about) which was recorded in Britain not to long after the ice age ended. So, yes. The world goes through temperature fluctuations. Get over it.Thank you Al Gore.

[fermin25 3]

Well I know that the Xisto forums is characterized for the sceptic people that post here over and over again but I am tired of this people that let that the mass media control their lives and their personalities...

 

Have you read some scientist article about global warming? Or everything you know is the Day After Tomorrow movie????

 

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING...... This is only a supposition... A theory.... The earth is going to a warn time but this is the natural cycle in the earth there is no any global warming that doesn?t exist... Why the united states don?t spend any dollar in the global warming??? Because that is simple ridicoulus.... The only money that the goverment pay for the global warming was send to Al Gore and his famous documentary...

 

I dont remember the documentary that explain the greatest fraud of the global warming....

 

Oh yes... you are lucky today because the documentary is titled: The Obama Deception

 

Please see it and you will get surprised when you know the truth about global warming and all its fraud...

 

Open your mind and free of the foolishness...

[room2593 0]

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING...... This is only a supposition... A theory.... The earth is going to a warn time but this is the natural cycle in the earth there is no any global warming that doesn´t exist...
Open your mind and free of the foolishness...

Well, there is global warming. Especially since your next statement says that "the earth is going into a warm time" bla bla bla. You should just point out that there is also global cooling. That's the point.

Also, all of my innocent hate mongering aside, we really don't have enough data to come to any conclusions yet. Give humanity another two hundred years and THEN I'll believe the trend in the data. Until that day, I think I'll hold off my final judgment, thank you very much.

Also, you're totally right. Forums are hotbeds of dissent and al gore hatred.

[andresf91 0]

Sure! Let's wait a couple centuries... that'd be great, so we can really see the trend. But not in numbers, simply coming out of our house. Because THERE is global warming, and the trend will stay there and the planet will become really hot.

Of course, let's say it doesn't matter if you live in the Alps, Andes, Himalaya... etc- But I live on the coast. My whole country, Uruguay, is on the coast!!! The highest elevation is 500 m. The rest of it is not high at all.

So I care about it. Not only is there a bunch of films about global warming. I saw myself Perito Moreno glacier melting.

Guess why?

[fermin25 3]

Sure! Let's wait a couple centuries... that'd be great, so we can really see the trend. But not in numbers, simply coming out of our house. Because THERE is global warming, and the trend will stay there and the planet will become really hot.Of course, let's say it doesn't matter if you live in the Alps, Andes, Himalaya... etc- But I live on the coast. My whole country, Uruguay, is on the coast!!! The highest elevation is 500 m. The rest of it is not high at all.
So I care about it. Not only is there a bunch of films about global warming. I saw myself Perito Moreno glacier melting.
Guess why?

Aren´t you reading? There is no global warming at all is simple a warn period that is cycle. The wheather in the planet is stable and the people is only falling once again in the same frauds like the world wars and invasions... The "global warming" menace is only a way to take power with those countries that have a high use of fuel like China and limitate their economy...

But if you think that in 2012 a high tsunami will kill you....Well you are free and you can lose your time... Maybe that will be the unique way to stop the false socialism in South America...

Think about that...