Slowing climate warming may require geoengineering

Oct 06, 2010 By Krishna Ramanujan

Geoengineering could prevent the potentially catastrophic climate-change tipping points that loom just ahead, reports a new Cornell study.

Cornell earth system scientist Charles Greene, the lead author of the study published in the September-October issue of Solutions magazine (Vol. 1, No. 5), says time is running out, yet governments have done little to reverse rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels.

Many scientists warn that to avoid excessive warming, and , CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be reduced to 350 parts-per-million (ppm) by the end of this century from the current level of around 390 ppm.

If actions aren't taken soon, and greenhouse warming in the atmosphere will reach a tipping point this century that will take more than 1,000 years to reverse, the paper warns.

It suggests that one way to reduce atmospheric CO2 by the end of the century is by setting up fields of air-capture devices that absorb CO2, very similar to the carbon capture and storage technology being developed for coal plants. The devices would use algal bioenergy as a power source to capture, extract and pipe CO2 for storage or industrial use. Algae provide a preferred bioenergy source relative to land plants because they are more productive, more efficient in their use of nutrients and do not need to compete with for prime agricultural land, Greene said.

The price tag for using this technology over the remainder of the century? Some $85.5 trillion to remove the 855 gigatons of carbon needed to bring atmospheric CO2 down to 350 ppm.

Although $85.5 trillion seems high, it is comparable to the estimated cost of using carbon emission reduction strategies to reduce atmospheric CO2 down to a lesser goal of 450 ppm, according to the paper. Corresponding to less than 1 percent of the global GDP for the rest of the century, such a cost is considered affordable compared with the alternative consequences of catastrophic climate change.

Still, it will take decades to develop air capture and algal bioenergy systems, scale up prototypes, prepare underground carbon repositories and deploy such systems on a global scale.

"In an ideal case, we could have full deployment on a global scale by 2050," said Greene.

To buy time, another strategy that many scientists are exploring involves altering the Earth's radiation budget by injecting sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere and blocking the sun's rays, mimicking what happens after a volcanic eruption, says the paper. Other strategies involve injecting seawater droplets into clouds and deploying shades or mirrors in space, all to block the sun's rays from reaching Earth's surface.

Such solar radiation management strategies "can be done quickly, but should only be considered as a last resort to buy ourselves some time" since they simply "cover up the problem without doing anything about the CO2," said Greene.

The paper's co-authors include Bruce Monger, a senior research associate in earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell, and Mark Huntley, the chief scientific officer for Cellana LLC in Kona, Hawaii.

Explore further: Yale journal explores advances in sustainable manufacturing

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Carbon dioxide already in danger zone, warns study

Nov 18, 2008

A group of 10 prominent scientists says that the level of globe-warming carbon dioxide in the air has probably already reached a point where world climate will change disastrously unless the level can be reduced in coming ...

Carbon sequestration: Boon or burden

Jun 27, 2010

The idea to sequester carbon is gaining support as a way to avoid global warming. For example, the European Union plans to invest billions of Euros within the next ten years to develop carbon capture and storage ...

Reining in carbon dioxide levels imperative but possible

Mar 08, 2006

Implementing a plan to keep rising carbon dioxide levels from reaching potentially dangerous levels could cost less than 1 percent of gross world product as of 2050, a cost that is well within reach of developed and developing ...

Image: Carbon dioxide on the rise

Jun 28, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The SCIAMACHY sensor on ESA?s Envisat satellite has provided scientists with invaluable data on our planet, allowing them to map global air pollution and the distribution of greenhouse gases.

Recommended for you

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2010
deploying shades or mirrors in space, all to block the sun's rays from reaching Earth's surface


the price of doing that would be completely absurd compared to using reflectors here on earth.

In order to even get a size that matters, you would need to construct something tens of miles wide and long, and by then you may as well be making some sort of orbital platform or Dyson structure.

If you're talking about something flimsy like a sheet of tin foil, I think that's a joke and would be blown away by the Solar Wind eventually.

People don't comprehend the problem of scale. It takes something the size of the Moon to block the Sun. The area of the Earth's cross-sectional disk is about 50.27 million square miles.

So if you had a square mile worth of shaders, you would be blocking less than one fifty-millionth of the solar radiation.

There has to be a more realistic and practical solution than this.
nada
3 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2010
There has to be a more realistic and practical solution than this.


There is, but yet the world STILL refuses to acknowledge it.We humans need to quit breeding like rabbits and reduce to the population from 6B to less than 500M. We need to allow the planet's 'system' to work again instead of this continued belief that we can control the weather.

I find it ridiculous that we talk about $trillions to "control" the weather when talking about over-population is taboo.
otto1932
2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2010
If you're talking about something flimsy like a sheet of tin foil, I think that's a joke and would be blown away by the Solar Wind eventually.

People don't comprehend the problem of scale.
And yet, it sounds like from the article they have real scientists and engineers, who actually know what they are doing, working on these things. How does that reality compare to your opinions?

Put another way, do your opinions have any worth at all compared to that reality? Your opinions should at least acknowledge that experts are involved in studying the feasibility of these things, dont you think? Otherwise you might look a little silly.
I find it ridiculous that we talk about $trillions to "control" the weather when talking about over-population is taboo.
While population control is not something that can be discussed publicly, it is and has been obviously THE major problem confronting humanity; and so we should expect that things ARE being done to confront it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2010
There is, but yet the world STILL refuses to acknowledge it.We humans need to quit breeding like rabbits and reduce to the population from 6B to less than 500M.
No, no we don't. And if you feel we do, go ahead and tell us how you plan to do so and how you arrived at those figures, Malthus.
otto1932
5 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2010
Wiki has a nice compilation on the subject of overpop:
http://en.wikiped...pulation
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2010
There is, but yet the world STILL refuses to acknowledge it.We humans need to quit breeding like rabbits and reduce to the population from 6B to less than 500M. We need to allow the planet's 'system' to work again instead of this continued belief that we can control the weather.


Do you realize some estimates show that the earth can theoretically support close to a trillion humans indefinitely at or near modern U.S. living standards, neglecting both the land mass of antartica and neglecting floating cities and floating farming in the oceans?
otto1932
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2010
There is, but yet the world STILL refuses to acknowledge it.We humans need to quit breeding like rabbits and reduce to the population from 6B to less than 500M. We need to allow the planet's 'system' to work again instead of this continued belief that we can control the weather.


Do you realize some estimates show that the earth can theoretically support close to a trillion humans indefinitely at or near modern U.S. living standards, neglecting both the land mass of antartica and neglecting floating cities and floating farming in the oceans?
And those estimates are nonsense, which you do not realize.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2010
And those estimates are nonsense, which you do not realize.


On what grounds? The maximum limiting factors far exceed the needs of 10 billion.

Solar constant: In one second the solar energy that hits the earth is 10,875 times greater than the total energy used by humans in the same second.

The amount of several conventional staple crops (potatoes and other tubers) and others, that could theoretically be grown in greenhouses or through aeroponics and hydroponics is exponentially greater than through conventional means. Already, greenhouses can produce 15 times the tomato yield per acre compared to open fields farming, yet the majority of tomatoes are still grown in open fields. In addition, greenhouses and hydro/aeroponics has far less erosion, in fact, little or no erosion of topsoils, and could be sustained in places where normal farming is impossible. It takes far less water and nutrients to get the same yield, and there is no erosion...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2010
On what grounds? The maximum limiting factors far exceed the needs of 10 billion.
I agree that the limiting factors far exceed 10 billion, however, there's no way that anything close to a trillion is sustainable, even by the standards of abject poverty.

Your limiting factor is fresh water. That will cap population long before anything else.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2010
Your limiting factor is fresh water. That will cap population long before anything else.


Fortunately, but tapping that Solar Constant, we can desalinate water pretty much as fast as we need...unfortunately, not many large agencies or governments seem to take this technology seriously.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2010
According to a show I saw a few days ago which was primarily focused on potatoes, but discussed the Aeroponics program of NASA for the purpose of growing food in space, an Aeroponically grown Potato requires 60% less water and 40% less time to grow to harvest.

Given those numbers, you could grow 5 aeroponics crops in the same time that 3 conventional crops were grown, and you would still use only 2/3 the amount of water. That is, 5 "seasons" worth of aeroponic crops would use only 2/3 the water of 3 "seasons" conventional crops. This also doesn't consider the fact that conventional crops are highly dependent on the seasons, which means there is probably enough time for more aeroponics crops of potatoes during the off-seasons of the conventional methods, and you still have plenty water to play with.
otto1932
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2010
Your limiting factor is fresh water. That will cap population long before anything else.


Fortunately, but tapping that Solar Constant, we can desalinate water pretty much as fast as we need...unfortunately, not many large agencies or governments seem to take this technology seriously.
Whos we? You got enough money and resources to accomplish your massive infrastructure conversion, that is before civilization collapses upon itself?

Lets ask Bill and Melinda about Solutions:
http://www.natura...tes.html

-Sounds like a Plan.
requires 60% less water
So do 60% fewer people.
Simonsez
5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
Who are we to try geoengineering (at this stage of technology)? If we screw up, we don't even have the capability to leave this rock, much less a suitable alternative habitat to go to even if we could.
otto1932
4 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2010
As an aside, weve been watching the trial and conviction of 2 home invasion monsters on tv, and people wonder how such a thing can be prevented. I say people like this are created in the womb.

The damage that unfit mothers do to their unborn children is something all of society suffers for. The idea of birth credits or licences:
http://en.wikiped...h_credit
-should be expanded to include certain basic requirements for prospective mothers, as well as constant realtime remote monitoring of nutrients and harmful substances they might ingest. A single infraction would require instant incarceration for the remainder of the pregnancy.

Parenting is arguably the single most important profession on the planet, but it is the only one which requires no training or screening to practice. Unfit mothers ruin lives from the start.

We can start limiting pop growth by ensuring that those who choose to conceive are responsible enough to do so.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2010
Geoengineering poses to many questions regarding those damned "Unintended Consequences".

Far cheaper, easier, sustainable, and livelihood-creating would be massive REFORESTATION/AGRIFORESTRY. Carbon-capture, food production, environmental mitigation, all in one inexpensive, semi-scalable, sustainable package.

I wonder, what's the hold up.

jon777
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2010
Wow half of you people are crazy. If you believe in depopulation so much kill yourself. I assume when you talk about reducing the pop. you mean other people. Quit acting like you are above the rest, you are part of the population! Don't spray the atmosphere, block the sun, or any of these terrible ideas. If CO2 is what your afraid of why do you want to sterilize people, and not plant trees.
jon777
3 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
hey otto1932 why don't you take some loving gates foundation vaccines and do us all a favor.
otto1932
2 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2010
Wow half of you people are crazy. If you believe in depopulation so much kill yourself. I assume when you talk about reducing the pop. you mean other people. Quit acting like you are above the rest,
Your are naive, and your extrapolating is in predictable error. Attrition and abortion (1 BILLION since legalized) will reduce pops in areas not affected by war, famine, and disease. These things are INEVITABLE, in progress, and irreversible.

Gates and his vaccine- how many men worldwide would opt for an injectable vasectomy, especially if they were paid for it? How many women would choose that over the dangers of third world abortion and RU486, especially if the children they already had were starving? How many Moslem women would opt for a surreptitious jab rather than dying during childbirth? Perhaps Gates did not misspeak.

@jon787
Go impregnate yourself.
toyo
not rated yet Oct 07, 2010
The study is flawed because the premises are flawed.
We have yet to establish that "excessive warming, sea level rise and extreme weather" are a foregone conclusion.
Read the last IPCC WG1 Summary Report. There are enough provisos and doubts expressed in that to ensure that the only "sure thing" is that we need more information and more studies.
All the conclusions of WG2, let alone WG3, rely on WG1, ergo, the case has NOT been made.
A_Paradox
not rated yet Oct 07, 2010
Well folks, if you really want to do something good, and you want to help others to understand how we can definitely fix most of the problems we have been busy creating for the last 10000 years of so, please keep the following in mind.

There are four fundamental ingredients needed for the survival of civilisation in the modern era. These, in English alphabetical order, are: compassion, democracy, ethics, and scientific method.

If any of your plans or projects are lacking in any of these ingredients, your plans will not succeed and the project will not achieve all the good things that were intended. Indeed it is quite possible your project will turn into its opposite!
[continued below]
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
... continued
I think those who continue to deny the accelerating increase of CO2 in our planet's atmosphere are voting for the abolition of sea fish as we know them.

Those who see human-caused global warming as a conspiracy at whatever level have simply not understood that Murphy's Law is just a description of the effects of entropy in daily life.

To "cure" population growth: provide effective education for women. To quell the ravages of diseases and warfare and civil strife: provide poor people with the resources and opportunities to create wealth. To remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere: grow seaweed [see below for details]. To raise low lying cities above the rising sea level: freeze the aquifers beneath them. If more flat land surface is needed to accommodate another couple of billion people: create ice islands on the ocean along the equator.

All the above is feasible. We already have the technology!
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
About growing seaweed: ice islands around the equator will allow the husbanding of vast kelp forests. These can be grown on cables suspended from buoys arranged in patterns radiating out from the ice islands. The temperature of the water in which the kelp and other algae will grow can be regulated using cold and nutrient rich water raised from the ocean bottom. This ocean bottom water will be used first as heat sink for the Stirling engines which provide the compression needed for ice-making. [A happy coincidence of processes!]

The seaweed will provide habitats for fish and their lavae which were displaced from their original habitats by over fishing and global warming effects.

it may well be feasible for corals to grow in this new habitat also.

Equatorial ice islands will also provide good locations for positioning the magnetic induction accelerators needed to put in place the thousands of tons of geostationary infrastructure needed by the space elevator. :-)
jon777
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2010
Otto you make the word impregnate sound dirty. you probably don't and will never have children, good for you. You don't deserve to know how wonderful it is.
the climate change data is flawed and manipulated. The assumptions being made are delusional. I am an environmentalist but i can see when scare tactics are being used for political and financial gain.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
jon777:

You'll find most people on this site pretty much hate everyone other than their own selves. Certainly they hate God, and they hate their fellow human beings.

Otto, being a godless atheist, does not comprehend that love and compassion are good things. He also doesn't comprehend that the very first commandment of God to mankind is to "be fruitful and multiply and FILL the earth," which was again echoed after the flood. This was both a command and a BLESSING.

If anyone supports depopulation, they certainly don't deserve to be among the surviving population.

This same hypocrite who calls for a "parenting license" to protect children, somehow finds no fault with murdering babies.
otto1932
4 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2010
He also doesn't comprehend that the very first commandment of God to mankind is to "be fruitful and multiply and FILL the earth
-This from someone who thinks his own scientific opinions are more valuable than those of scientists and engineers who are experts in their fields. Your cognition is definitely skewed towards your interior sir.

You godlovers dont know when to stop. You have always been taught that god will provide for however many children you can bear. This served civilization in the past by helping it to outnumber its enemies on the battlefield; which is what it was Designed for.

But it is now a disease. You religionists keep your women shrouded and sequestered in order to maximize your growth. Your selfish refusal to limit reproduction to families you can support, make war and famine inevitable.

You make ABORTION necessary because of your mindless, ruinous desire to outgrow the other side. Religionists are the REASON abortion occurs. Face the Truth. Own up.
otto1932
2.8 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2010
To "cure" population growth: provide effective education for women.
Not possible when those women have already been taught that whatever you may try to teach them is evil, because you are satans emissary.
To quell the ravages of diseases and warfare and civil strife: provide poor people with the resources and opportunities to create wealth.
People in areas experiencing the greatest rate of growth think that western capitalism is decadent, and only islam deserves to rule the world:
http://www.youtub...bedded#!
(Yeah I know its FOX)
-These religionists believe western greed is the reason they are suffering. In reality their overgrowth has caused chronic shortages and inflation which inevitably leads to poverty.

They have been shown who is responsible for this, and what to do about it, in no uncertain terms.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
About growing seaweed: ice islands around the equator will allow the husbanding of vast kelp forests. These can be grown on cables suspended from buoys arranged in patterns radiating out from the ice islands. The temperature of the water in which the kelp and other algae will grow can be regulated using cold and nutrient rich water raised from the ocean bottom. This ocean bottom water will be used first as heat sink for the Stirling engines which provide the compression needed for ice-making. [A happy coincidence of processes!]

[...]

Equatorial ice islands will also provide good locations for positioning the magnetic induction accelerators needed to put in place the thousands of tons of geostationary infrastructure needed by the space elevator. :-)


Can we have crazy Corona/Bacardi parties on your ice islands?

Just kiddin'

Caliban

Simonsez
2 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2010
@otto
You make ABORTION necessary because of your mindless, ruinous desire to outgrow the other side. Religionists are the REASON abortion occurs. Face the Truth. Own up.

It is mankind's intrinsic programming (attract mate, spread seed) and use of sex as a tool for escapism and self-gratification with a dose of recklessness that is responsible for abortion, not your most hated of subjects. I agree that its residual effects as you mentioned above play a part, but so do a myriad of other factors unrelated to religions.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2010
It is mankind's intrinsic programming (attract mate, spread seed) and use of sex as a tool for escapism and self-gratification with a dose of recklessness that is responsible for abortion, not your most hated of subjects. I agree that its residual effects as you mentioned above play a part, but so do a myriad of other factors unrelated to religions.
Indigenous western pops in most areas are approaching zero growth, largely because the culture has been able to supplant religionist dogma and instill responsibility. This culture could thrive with continued zero growth were it not for those excess peoples escaping the poverty and conflict endemic in religion-dominated areas, who bring their beliefs with them.

The insidious dogma we grew up with still works its evil. How many of us still pray for a break? How many women might say 'gods will' when they submit to unprotected sex? People who surrendered their will to god as children have difficulty in recovering it completely.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2010
Otto you make the word impregnate sound dirty.
Bringing an unwanted child into the world that you cant support and that you know will starve, is beyond dirty. The fact that religions require you to do this makes them evil.
A_Paradox
5 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2010
Caliban,

Now there is yet a third glorious coincidence of processes! A permanent cool store for your beers and Barcardi! My genius is greater than even I thought [chortle/choke :-]

I was thinking that the upper surface of the ice would be insulated in most places by mulch, with crops growing in the top of the mulch, but the mulch/whatever would need to be very thick so crop plants didn't get frost bite in their roots. A dance floor would present different challenges. I'm sure it will be possible to make various kinds of plastic or fibreboard out of seaweed. Something suitable for springy floorboards for sure! Keep in touch 'cause you may be called upon to organise some party people as testers
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2010
Bringing an unwanted child into the world that you cant support and that you know will starve, is beyond dirty. The fact that religions require you to do this makes them evil.


Once again, the homicidal atheist is found to be either completely misinformed, or else just flat out lying.

We've all heard the fiction from the faithless fool. Now let's see the facts about what Christians teach about parental responsibility:

1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Proverbs 13:22
A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.

In fact, the term "inheritance" appears in the Bible over 200 times, because of the ancient Biblical truth that parents should provide for their children, and not the other way around.

Jesus sometimes said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God..."
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2010
What bugs me about hypocrites like the majority of the liberals and progressives on this site is you people complain about world poverty and world hunger, and yet you support the use of land for farming tobacco, marijauna, or of using other crops for making alcohol, instead of using the farming space for staple foods crops.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
It has been reported that India will overtake China as the leading world economy. One reason could be is they did not buy into zero population growth as did China and Europe.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2010
In a world where couples have 1 or 2 children, retire at 66 yrs old, and then live to 100 or more years old, each successive generation effectively becomes the slaves of the previous generation, as people will often be on social security or other government or private sector retirement income for longer than they were actually in the work force (See California's 30yrs for 90% state retirement programme).

These programs are completely unsustainable across even another decade or two with the present demographic winter, caused by the zero population growth combined with social security.

Combine this with now millions of seniors doing reverse mortgages, after having bought a house for 3 times what it was worth, paid for it, doubling again the price due to interest, they then sell it back to the bank for less than the original value.

While people's stuff is theirs to do with as they please, they are in effect selling their children's inheritance to the banks and foriegn interests.
otto1932
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2010
Now let's see the facts about what Christians teach about parental responsibility
-And what to do if the responsible godder admits to himself that he cannot afford another child? We shall look to the Law:
"13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
-This is often quoted as the promise that god will provide for Xian hordes. For he goes on to say:
"17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies"
-So he promises support and he tells godders how to get it; by overrunning their enemies and stealing what they have. Which the Hebrews obediently do.
otto1932
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2010
You see, fanatics do not need to take responsibility for supporting future children because god says he will do it for them. So when these children inevitably begin to starve, god points out that this is the infidels fault, why they don't deserve what they've got, and why the faithful have every right to take it from them.

Of course, the other side has been told the same thing. This is how religions cause untold suffering, starvation, war, and ecological ruination. Because god demands it of them.
otto1932
3 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2010
God demands that the faithful produce enough offspring to make war a necessity, to populate large armies with angry young men, and to replace battle losses faster than the enemy.

This is a brilliant formula for world conquest, population management, and technological growth. But it's just wrong, don't you think QC? time for it to END.

The problem is, you religionists believe that without religion there would be no goodness in the world. But in truth religions only appropriated goodness as an excuse for promoting the obvious EVIL engendered in the above equation. Magnificent Deception, don't you think?
otto1932
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2010
Ah, one more thing... The promise Jesus made as recorded multiple times in your book, that he would return 'soon'- within a generation, before any of the disciples died, before the 'one whom Jesus loved died (John? Mary mag?)- well, where is he then?
http://www.gospel...ing.html

Jesus seems very specific, and his intentions are well corroborated. This is one of the few points on which desperate fundamentalists will allow the possibility of metaphor, as in 'Jesus meant the church won't die' and 'all xians are his disciples' or somesuch.

They will even blame it on sinners and other religions. 'Its your fault we're not in heaven and my mothers still dead!' -And maybe this is in fact the reason for it- something else to blame the enemy for.

At any rate it is inconsistent (actually it is very consistent with the theme of biblical deception) and highly suspect. Either Jesus lied or he got held up for some unanticipated reason.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
otto1932:

You are a very, very confused individual, and have obviously made no real attempt to read the scriptures for real understanding.

For example, in the context that Jesus used the phrase you were talking about, "...this generation shall not pass...,"

In Matthew 24:34, mark 13, and luke 21, it is obviously referring to the generation who is alive when the list of signs begins to come to pass. He simply wasn't talking about the people alive at the time.

No metaphors or special pleading required. You're simply reading something into the passage that it does not say.

Also, you should read the end of John's Gospel, as John clarifies that Jesus did not say John would live forever, or continue till his return, he said, "if I will...what is it to you?" Effectively, he was saying, "It's none of your business."

You really need to re-read John 21:22-24, as you clearly never read the passage for yourself, and somebody clearly lied to you about what it says.
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2010
You are a very, very confused individual, and have obviously made no real attempt to read the scriptures for real understanding.
-And you're going to set me straight right?
You really need to re-read John 21:22-24, as you clearly never read the passage for yourself, and somebody clearly lied to you about what it says.
I've read them all as evinced most recently from the link and my checking of biblegateway. You're the one who's reinterpreting to fit your preconceptions- rather presumptuous- but again sadly typical.

Jesus says MANY TIMES he'll be back shortly, don't make any plans, and he never shows up. Your take is only one of various, conflicting, and erroneous, Xian apologist extrapolations. Obviously.

And prophesy CLEARLY says the messiah only comes once. Again you're outnumbered and shouted down by hordes of Hebrews and mohammadians, all of whom are just as deluded as you.
otto1932
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2010
You really need to re-read John 21:22-24
You really need to read all the other instances of jesuses broken promise, as listed in that link I included, to get a better understanding of the CONTEXT and scope of the deception.
somebody clearly lied to you about what it says
Yah that's what I've been saying. The bible has lied to us all. For very Important Reasons. But the Covenant has been fulfilled. The earth is now full of screaming, scratching religionists. Time to pry your holy books and fetish icons from your hands and raise you off your knees before you kill us all.
mertzj
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2010
Lets just say that whoever said the earth could sustain 3trillion people... which theres noway in hell. But if it could what happens when it reaches 3 trillion? Oh let me guess not too many of you care because you wont be around to see it. Whats wrong with only having 2 children?
mertzj
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2010
Correct me if my math is wrong but 3 trillion people would be about 500 sq ft per person on almost every bit of land. That would be AWESOME!!!! But who cares we wont be here to see it so lets not take any action now!
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2010
What bugs me about hypocrites like the majority of the liberals [...]and world hunger, and yet you support the use of land for farming tobacco, marijauna, or of using other crops for making alcohol, instead of using the farming space for staple foods crops.


What bugs me about most corporocratic godder hypocrites on physorg is their propensity to resort to baseless, insupportable attack -when faced with superior information, argument, or grasp of reality- or to the expedient of goal-post moving.

Tobacco, marijuana, crops for alcoholic-beverage production, and many other substances are grown the WORLD OVER -by the starving as well as the sleek- for their own pleasure, and to earn a little cash, acknowledging the need for people to be able to forget, however briefly, just how shitty life can be. As far as food is concerned, it's not SUPPLY, it's DISTRIBUTION that is inequitable.

FACTS -which you would know if you were the model of Compassion that you pretend to be.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
In a world where couples have 1 or 2 children, retire at 66 yrs old, and then live to 100 or more years old, each successive generation effectively becomes the slaves of the previous generation, as people will often be on social security or other government or private sector retirement income for longer than they were actually in the work force (See California's 30yrs for 90% state retirement programme).
Yeah, so you don't have kids. It's called payback. You're their slave for 20 years or so and then when you become 65, they are your slave for about 20 years or so. Fair trade in my opinion.

Even your flimsy religion says to respect your elders. Speaking of which:
A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
It also says to give away all your treasures so that you can enter heaven. Pick your scripture wisely, for you know not how it contradicts itself.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
it's not SUPPLY, it's DISTRIBUTION that is inequitable.

The result of government regulations.
Do you advocate free trade?
otto1932
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2010
it's not SUPPLY, it's DISTRIBUTION that is inequitable.

The result of government regulations.
Do you advocate free trade?
Sorry you're off topic. This threads already been hijacked.

Marj_n knows better than to argue religion any more because it's so easy to demonstrate how godless she really is.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2010
it's not SUPPLY, it's DISTRIBUTION that is inequitable.

The result of government regulations.
Do you advocate free trade?
Sorry you're off topic. This threads already been hijacked.

Why?
Socialism and zero population growth are all proposed solutions to 'fixing' global warming.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2010
it's not SUPPLY, it's DISTRIBUTION that is inequitable.


The result of government regulations.
Do you advocate free trade?


No, mangy, I do not advocate your "free"market.
Your "free" market is simply a construct in which the seller is "free" to pocket just as much profit as the traffic will bear, which means that this"free"market entity will sell every bit of product to buyers who offer even a fraction of a cent more per unit, regardless of need.

The "free"(Mammon)market you so fervently advocate is certainly in no way altruistic, and therefore in no way more equitable/egalitarian in Distribution of Goods than any other regulated or unregulated market.

Now piss off with your flim-flammery.

marjon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2010
Your "free" market is simply a construct in which the seller is "free" to pocket just as much profit

Yes, but he must PERSUADE his customer to buy. He a cannot use FORCE like the govt does.
How is theft, taking by force, egalitarian?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2010
Yes, but he must PERSUADE his customer to buy. He a cannot use FORCE like the govt does.
How is theft, taking by force, egalitarian?
Show the force. I don't see the US military rolling up with guns blazing on those who don't pay their health insurance premiums.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2010
Your "free" market is simply a construct in which the seller is "free" to pocket just as much profit


Yes, but he must PERSUADE his customer to buy.[...]


All the "persuasion" in the world, margie, will not enable your "free"market to sell a pound of rice to a southern Sudanese for a dollar, when all the sudanese has in his pockets is a dime.

DSMIII would define you as a psychopath, but I would add that the traits that define you as such are actually voluntary- as in greed-inspired- and that therefore, in addition to being an autopsychopath, you are simultaneously a hypocrite.

Go blow some more noise from your mangyhole.

mertzj
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2010
It takes, according to some calculations, 2.1 hectares of land and water to provide for one average human. The important word is: average. The American footprint is about 10 hectares. So if all humans lived at US standards, we'd need another four Earths.