SkepticLance

Sayonara There will be no such thing as 'near complete' exploitation, since the total amount of resource is so great, in most cases. Lead at 10 trillion tonnes in the Earth's crust will never be totally exploited, or even close. The argument is how large a fraction of what exists is potentially exploitable. I am suggesting that we will end up exploiting ores that are 1% or even 0.1% of the richness of ores currently tapped, and this will mean a massively increased potential to exploit. You asked : "are you prepared to make the claim that the organisation or authority managing the implementation of a sol-wide resource mining operation could guarantee their access to the raw materials they need to make that possible" I am not prepared to make that claim in those words. While long term trends are likely to continue, and the long term trend is to exploiting leaner ores, we do not know the details of the future. I do not claim to be a prophet. Will we still use Platinum in space craft in 200 years? There is no way I can know. We may be replacing it with more common metals, or special alloys. I will state my very strong belief that resource depletion will not stop development in space travel. Politics might stop it. A nuclear war might stop it. But not resource depletion. As long as science and technology continue to develop, that will not be a barrier we cannot cross. If something is too expensive, humanity will find substitutes.

Sayonara The historic trend I speak of is strongly marked over the last 100 years, but in fact goes back thousands. Take gold for example. Cro Magnon man would have encountered gold in the form of very rare nuggets, on very rare occasions. Ultra rare and ultra precious to them. However, the oldest gold objects known today are from Egypt 5000 years ago. By 3200 years ago, alluvial gold was known, which could be extracted from river bed sediment by passing that sediment in water over woolly sheepskins. By 500 BC, the Greeks were actively mining gold from out of the ground, by slave labour. Later, the ancient Romans used massive engineering works to direct high pressure water as a gold mining tool. 1887 is the year that the use of cyanide in gold mining is granted, and has been used ever since. Throughout the 20th Century, engineering works for gold extraction continued to improve. The whole way is a trend, over more than 3000 years, of continued improvement and continued exploitation of more and more difficult sources of gold. The point is that the trend I am talking about is not some recent and temporary trend. It is thousands of years, and will doubtless continue for a long time to come.

For those who are nutty enough to believe in psychics, telepathy, solving murders by psychic activity or other generalised nuttiness, bear in mind that there has been a US$ 1.1 million prize for over 10 years for anyone able to prove such abilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi Despite many attempts, in the face of scrutineers who are a mixture of scientists and professional magicians, no-one has been able to claim the prize. Everyone who turns up is revealed as either self deluded or a fraud. people who can con the public find out they cannot con the experts. James Randi is now actively chasing high profile mediums and psychics and chasing them into going for his prize. So far, each and every one of them has refused or made lame excuses. This shows they are frauds. Quite simply, if someone had a psychic power that was genuine, they woud have gone for, and won the million dollar prize. No-one has, and that is pretty close to proof positive that such abilities do not exist.

Sayonara Much of our discussion is a rehash of the wager between optimistic economist Dr. Julian Simon and population pessimist Dr. Paul Ehrlich, in 1980.Julian Simon won the ten year wager, and was paid out in 1990. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager He made the comment : "[simon] always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker."[4] There was actually a book written about this 'reverse Cassandra' effect, which was published early this decade. I have lost the name of the book and the name of the author, which is sad since I would like to get hold of it. I read a review of the book, which goes into detail about the kind of mental 'quirk' which leads people into believing that which relates to disaster, and disbelieving more optimistic views, even when the balance of evidence supports optimism. My views on matters such as resource depletion are heavily influenced by recent history. This includes lots of people with views similar to Sayonara, who are subsequently proved wrong due to improvements in technology. The other classic was the Club of Rome report Limits to Growth, published in 1973, which essentially said what Sayonara is saying now. ie. that human progress would be slowed or halted before the year 2000 by shortage of raw materials. The whole history of humanity includes the increasing ability to exploit lower and lower concentrations of resources in ever thinner ores, and to do it ever more cheaply, plus the ability to find, continually, better and better substitutes for traditional materials. Why do you think this trend will suddenly stop now? My prediction is that where we extract one gram per tonne of a resource today, in 50 years we will extract 0.1 gram per tonne, economically. And we will find that this expands the resource ten fold. OK. This is a gross generalisation and the exact numbers may be different, but even if details vary, I predict the principle will hold. As an example : Here in New Zealand, a university team is researching what they call 'micro-crystalline' gold. This is gold particles in intimate contact with quartz that cannot be extracted using traditional methods, since we cannot grind the quartz finely enough to release the gold. According to that research team, the total tonnage of gold in this form is way bigger than the tonnage of gold in traditional ores. Once humanity learns to extract micro-crystalline gold economically, gold will become more abundant and cheaper. I cannot predict the details of future technologies, but the historical evidence shows humanity's ability to continually improve in spite of high purity ores becoming scarcer. Where we cannot find a resource cheaply, I predict we will find substitutes.

To Sayonara So your main objection to my logic is the idea that rare elements will become economically unavailable??? You are referring to such things as Platinum, Iridium etc. Yes, to a degree you are correct. They are in limited supply, and while future extraction technology advances will make them more available, they will never be 'common'. However, that does not mean that their scarcity has to be limiting to human-kind's future progress. For example : Platinum is the main catalyst used in making sulphur trioxide, for sulphuric acid. Yet much cheaper Vanadium pentoxide will also do, but not quite so effectively. Recent discoveries have shown that, if we convert the VO5 to nanoparticles, and coat the catalyst surface with those particles, the increased surface area at the molecular level makes the VO5 actually a better catalyst than the traditional plain Platinum. This is one example of how modern technology makes us able to substitute an abundant material for a scarce material. Such examples are legion. Silicons can be used to make ceramics. Since we were talking about space travel, let me use that as an example. Ceramics make up the tiles covering the space shuttle. They line rocket exhausts. They can be used to line the cylinders in an internal combustion engine. They are immensely versatile, and are NOT dependent on a scarce resource. Aluminium and carbon fibres can be used together to make up rocket bodies.

Sayonara I am most sceptical about predictions over a time period of 10,000 to 100,000 years. In fact, I am sceptical of predictions that run over decades. There have been too many attempts in the past to predict the future, which have become unstuck. Some things are obvious and predictable. Less obvious predictions must be treated with the proverbial pinch of salt till proven correct.

Sayonara said : "I am not going to reply to SkepticLance's comments on resource availability any more, because he is using his usual tactic of ignoring the rational objections and simply waiting for a bit then re-stating his proposals later on in what looks like a war of attrition against the people who disagree with him. This is not a form of debate which I really want to waste much time on, so I won't be engaging SL until he addresses the outstanding points that I have raised which conflict with his ideas." But the problem is a lack of rational argument against my points. Simply stating that resources are finite is not an argument against my point that most such resources are present in amounts that mean they will not run out for hundreds or thousands of years. Indeed, if a future equivalent of the old mohole project means our descendents can tap the molten magma in the Earth's mantle, the amounts of resources will be so vast as to approach infinity for all practical purposes. The mohole project, for those not in the know, was to drill beneath the ocean, where the Earth's crust is thinner, through the Mohorovicic discontinuity, into the mantle, and sample magma for research. http://www.nationalacademies.org/history/mohole/ The technology was available to do this 35 years ago. Today we could do it better. Tapping magma would be an amazing source of energy, and very probably access to a wide range of heavier elements. After all, heavier elements, like lead, sink, and are in much higher concentration below the Earth's crust. The only real argument is cost. As we move to lower and lower purity ores, will the cost of extraction become prohibitive? Only time will tell. The other point is substitution. For example : silicon is one of the most abundant elements, and silicon compounds can be used for a vast range of possible raw materials, including amazing ceramics. Aluminium and iron are both available in quantities that mean no shortages are possible for hundreds of thousands of years. Carbon, as has been pointed out, is abundant. It can, in theory, be converted into extremely valuable allotropes including diamond, buckyballs, graphite, buckytubes. If you extend this to organic compounds, we have a resource of almost infinite variety. I think that the idea of human progress being stopped due to lack of available resources represents terrible and totally unrealistic pessimism. Changing costs mean that the materials used in 100 years will not be the materials we use today. The materials they use then will be superior. After all, the whole history of the science/engineering topic of materials use is a history of continuous improvement, and lowering costs.

Captain This item I read first in New Scientist, and it is, apparently, about to be published in Nature. I just did a google search to find an easily accessible internet equivalent for people on this forum to check. As far as I can see, the National Geographic version is not much different in essential facts from the New Scientist version. Of course, I cannot yet comment on the Nature version. The prediction of a new Ice Age differs from a rerun of the repeated glacial periods in that it is suggested that it will be far more intense, and last tens of millions of years. I am sceptical, and think it is unlikely. However, it will cheer up those who are sick of global warming catastrophe predictions to see a prediction that AGW will 'save the world'.

Swansont's reference suggests Greenland contribution to sea level rise is 0.5 mm per year. If correct, that is still only one sixth of the total. So my statement that the bulk of the sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion and loss of water from mountains still stands.

iNow There is nothing special about that post, which I have looked at. However, you have ignored my responses to your arguments so ... The arguments fall into three categories. 1. Appeal to Authority. Someone who works with models tells you how good the models are, so it must be right. 2. 20:20 hindsight. After 30 years of tweaking models to make them simulate what has already happened, they manage to simulate what has already happened. That is a great argument! 3. Approximate nowsight. In dealing with things that carry no surprises, such as current weather, they manage, most of the time but not all, to come close to reality. As I have said before, a model must meet the same criteria that a hypothesis in science meets. It must make predictions of a novel nature, that come true. In other words, it must correctly predict something surprising. If it predicts something obvious, such as continued warming, that is meaningless. iNow, you said : "Plus, you're bitching that predictions are only minimally accurate for something 10,000 years away?" Careful, iNow. With wording like that, one might suspect that you are not exercising scientific dispassion. I was not 'bitching' about anything. I was posting something I thought might be of general interest, and indicating my scepticism since it was based on yet another GCM.

I came across the above heading in a New Scientist article and thought it was worth posting here, since it is thought provoking. Since it is based on yet another global climate model, I am sceptical of its accuracy - but hey - somebody has gotta be right! The story is also found at : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081112-ice-age-global-warming.html It suggests that the world's climate is destined in 10,000 to 100,000 years, to go into a massive ice age, lasting tens of millions of years, and more severe than any of the glacial periods over the past million years. However, anthropogenic global warming saves the day! With human released greenhouse gases, we will remain safe and comfortable, at an equable temperature, which will, of course, preserve million of species from extinction, and maintain ecosystems in a state of health. Again, I am sceptical. If there is a serious point to be made from this, it is to reinforce my doubts about the reliablility, accuracy, precision etc of global climate computer models.

iNow You have begun talking about something else entirely. As soon as you introduce the word "if" you are in a realm of speculation. I was discussing today's reality - not some hypothetical possibility in the future.

iNow Are you agreeing or denying my point about Greenland ice melt being a trivial contributor to sea level rise? I used the tonnage (not volume) of the ocean as the basis of my calculation, since that was the data I had handy. The calculation is valid. Do you need me to explain it?

iNow I just showed you the data. You said originally that land ice melt from Greenland made a significant contribution to rising sea level. I demonstrated that the addition was trivial. One million tonnes of Greenland ice melting equals 0.004 mm sea level rise world wide. The data is good. The impact of even slight rises in sea level? Well, against a background of 3 mm per year, the addition of 0.004 mm is not exactly something to run scared of.... I know you hate the fact that I am too sceptical to swallow all the catastrophist propaganda about global warming. However, you should not, even by implication, accuse me of ignoring data or using bad data as a result of that prejudice. I have enormous respect for good data and make use of it to form my own belief system.

To jimmy I didn't actually suggest a drop in temperature. Increased snow precipitation will not increase albedo unless there is an increase in snow covered area, which is not the case here. However, a warming planet means more moisture in the air, which leads to more precipitation as snow over much of Greenland and Antarctica, which to some extent may slow down the increase in sea levels. Eventually, every drop of snow that lands on Greenland makes its way to the sea, but this may take thousands or even millions of years. To iNow who believes that loss of snow from Greenland is causing major sea level rise. You quoted: "High-precision gravimetry from satellites in low-noise flight has since determined Greenland is losing millions of tons per year, in accordance with loss estimates from ground measurement." This statement appears impressive, but is, in fact, deceptive. The oceans of the world contain E18 tonnes of seawater. That is a million times a trillion tonnes. The average depth is just under 4 kms. A simple calculation tells us that a million tonnes of water off Greenland adds one part per trillion to the world's oceans, or 0.004 mm in depth. Since the sea level rise is over 3 mm per year, this addition is trivial.

iNow I was being very nice in pointing out that a piece of scientific nonsense that you posted ... "There's also that small bit of ice at the top of icebergs (roughly 10%) which is above the ocean... as that melts, it adds to the volume, and it was not displacing anything whatsoever when it was above water." ...was in error. And it was a mistake. The little bit at the top of an iceberg is part of the total weight, which is equal to the weight of water displaced. Thus, the melting of an iceberg does not add to sea levels. You implied that it would raise sea level, which it will not. Sea level increase is about 3 mm per year as global average. Most of that is thermal expansion, and most of the rest is melt from mountain glaciers. Anything else is trivial.

iNow You forget that water expands as it freezes. That makes ice less dense which is the reason it floats. An iceberg including the bit on top, displaces its own weight in water, and when it melts it occupies less space, and there is not change in sea level. Sea level rise can come from ice on land melting, as you said. Not from sea ice melting. To date, there is very little sea level rise, if any, from ice on the big Arctic and Antarctic land ice masses, since warming increases precipitation, meaning more snow falling inland, and increasing the total mass of ice on Greenland and Antarctica. However, there has been land ice melt from mountain glaciers, such as the Himalayas and Andes, which have added to net sea level, albeit to a small amount.

As a good sceptic, I am delighted to be very annoying to those who are adamantly fixated upon a particular belief. In this case, I am not sceptical of anthropogenic global warming as such, but on the more extreme interpretations of that idea. If I annoy those who have a pseudo-religious belief in forthcoming catastrophe, that is tough. However, there might be one or two who have less closed minds who might actually start to think!

In certain situations I believe in applying the rule of Occam's Razer. Ghosts and UFO's fit squarely into that situation. Explaining ghost is easy. One of several solutions. 1. Genuine error. You see a flicker of light and mistake it. 2. Genuine insanity. 3. Genuine fraud. Mediums and the like are simply frauds. Some are self deluded, and defraud themselves first. Most are con artists, and apply their disgusting trade to extract money from those who are vulnerable and in pain. Books have been written about the techniques mediums use to defraud. Cold reading. Preliminary research. Conjurer's tricks etc. Harry Houdini was the first major investigator and revealed a wide range of tricks used. Today, James Randi (retired stage magician) is continuing that work. Randi had a prize for many years of one million US dollars for anyone who could prove any psychic ability, including talking to the dead. After 20 years of efforts, not one person could present such proof in the face of a judging panel of scientists and experienced conjurers. http://skepdic.com/randi.html

No, its just early onset Alzheimers.

Mr Skeptic I agree with pretty much everything you said about space mining. The only thing is the time factor. Nothing is much likely to happen without a space elevator, and that is 100 years away. After that, literally the sky is the limit.

To ia I agree that only a portion of any resource will be extractable. But how much? The history of mineral exploitation is the history of extracting more and more of a resource and tapping lower and lower concentrations. We are now extracting one gram of gold per tonne of rock, and that will get lower still. With iron, as I pointed out, the resource is so vast that to suggest it being exhausted is pure fantasy. With lead, and 10 trillion tonnes in the Earth's crust, plus a much vaster amount in the mantle, the question becomes purely, what fraction will we learn to exploit? Even a very small fraction will be enough for humankinds needs for centuries. I agree that getting lead from seawater is unlikely, but there are a number of other resources in the oceans in much larger amount. Lithium for example, which will become vitally important for battery technology. Uranium, present in the ocean at a total of 4 billion tonnes, is already being extracted in small amounts by a Japanese pilot plant. To lancelot If you want to speculate about substantial human evolution, in the natural way as opposed to gene manipulation on zygotes, then you need to look at space exploration and colonisation. An article in Scientific American by a couple of NASA scientists, on star travel, suggests that humans will be travelling to other star systems in 1000 years. The expected velocity will be about 0.1c. To get to Alpha Centauri would take about 55 years. Given enough thousands of years (still an eye blink in terms of evolutionary time), humans will colonise a large number of places. Each will, however, be genetically isolated. Imagine the potential for human evolution with a few thousand colonies and each genetically isolated, and each in a substantially different environment.

ia With the deepest of respect to you personally, but that idea is ridiculous. For a start, you used an incredible example. Iron makes up 5% of the Earth's crust by weight. (5E17 tonnes, or 500,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes!) It is physically and totally impossible for humans to use it all up. And do you really think we can tie up 10 trillion tonnes of lead at one time? The real truth is that 'used up' means dispersed into a form we cannot currently exploit. That does not mean we cannot exploit it in the future with improved technology. Another example : There are plants and bacteria with the ability to concentrate certain minerals from low concentration sources. Researchers are even now searching for the genes in those organisms that permit this feat. There is a research team trying to develop genetically modified plants to grow on the tailings of gold mines, and concentrate gold inside their tissues. This is a trivial example. Much more important would be a genetically modified kelp able to concentrate phosphorus inside its tissues from sea water. There is no theoretical bar to their success, and I suspect it is only a matter of time before this, and other similar forms of biological technology, will be a part of the lives of posterity.

I think a factor that is often overlooked in this type of discussion is the view that minerals are used up. They are not, of course. Only fossil fuels fit that category. We cannot use up these resources. Take lead. What happens to lead that is mined and used? It does not evaporate. It is actually still there - just more distributed. If our sophistication in mineral extraction continues to grow, we will eventually get to the point where we can re-harvest the lead that has been mined, extracted, and used. Certain companies are already experimenting with mining land fills to recover materials that have been dumped. Lead that enters the oceans will probably precipitate out and become part of oceanic sediment, that can be mined. The lead still in solution may possibly be removed by advanced ion exchange systems. And on top of that, there is the lead in the Earth's mantle. It makes the 10 trillion tonnes in the crust look like a mere bagatelle. While the original Mohole Project was abandoned, the future may involve reaching the mantle and learning to extract minerals from the molten magma. When we consider the sheer abundance of minerals on Earth, it makes me wonder why we are discussing space mining at all.

Whoops. I meant fission, but the keyboard obviously had a mind of its own! Swansont As I understand it, you are suggesting that cold water thermalises or slows neutrons more effectively than hot water. Since slower, or lower energy neutrons are needed to stimulate fission, their absense leads to the reactor slowing. Any incipient disaster with fission increasing, will heat the water, leading to fewer low energy neutrons, and thus a reduction in fission. Have I got it right?