Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fivekatz

I have always embraced this issues as a good citizen of the planet but recent data combined with the lack of political will in the world for the first time as a 59 year old I actually think that we may screw it up so bad that I will see that horror in my lifetime.

I can't be alone in this feeling and the captains of industry and power must so how feel they will get first class seating an their way to hell, otherwise WTF are they thinking?

---

I think we take the prudent approach. Key word. Prudent. Meaning, of course, acting with or showing care and thought for the future.
We're deciding that future generations simply have no value. Plus there are benefits to reducing fossil fuel emissions. Less pollution. Isn't that a good thing?
The Canadian scientist, David Suzuki, pointed out that when he was born the population was 2 billion. That was in 1936. We're at 7 billion now. Heading toward: 9 billion by 2050.
And all these people in India and China and elsewhere are gonna want refrigerators, air conditioning, cars, computers etc., etc., etc. I mean, how are we gonna manage to sustain this endless level of production and consumption?
Brings me to: carrying capacity:
http://www.sustainablescale.org/Conc...gCapacity.aspx

David Suzuki speaks about overpopulation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo

The Toxification of Planet Earth - Paul Ehrlich:

The Toxification of Planet Earth - Paul Ehrlich - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

David Suzuki speaks about overpopulation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo

---

Suzuki doesn't know what he is talking about. Demography has already down-graded the rise of the world's population over the coming century, and that is without factoring in mega-deaths from as yet unidentified pandemics -a rogue factor but not entirely fanciful. I was reading about these population trends in the 1990s so I don't know how supposedly informed people like Suzuki can be so out of touch with reality. The concentration of populations in urban areas might be a problem (or an opportunity) but Malthus was wrong in the 19th century just as Suzuki is in this one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...h-harper-video

Excellent links. Thanks Stavros.
Agree ,the Suzuki video is ridiculous. The Sarah Harper video is a much more interesting and thorough and very thought provoking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Suzuki doesn't know what he is talking about. Demography has already down-graded the rise of the world's population over the coming century, and that is without factoring in mega-deaths from as yet unidentified pandemics -a rogue factor but not entirely fanciful. I was reading about these population trends in the 1990s so I don't know how supposedly informed people like Suzuki can be so out of touch with reality. The concentration of populations in urban areas might be a problem (or an opportunity) but Malthus was wrong in the 19th century just as Suzuki is in this one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...h-harper-video

---

It isn't really human numbers. It's production -- and consumption.
I mean, there are close to a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.... Their impact on the climate is quite negligible. Much like the people in Bangladesh. A population of close to 150 million. Impact on global warming? Pretty negligible.
However, India and China want what we have. And are gonna get it. Now what impact will that have on, well, exacerbating climate change?

Climate Change Leads to Massive Food Shortages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNSssBTZ-20

Inhofe: God Says Global Warming Is A Hoax:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...oax/?mobile=nc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

It isn't really human numbers. It's production -- and consumption.
I mean, there are close to a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.... Their impact on the climate is quite negligible. Much like the people in Bangladesh. A population of close to 150 million. Impact on global warming? Pretty negligible.
However, India and China want what we have. And are gonna get it. Now what impact will that have on, well, exacerbating climate change?

Climate Change Leads to Massive Food Shortages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNSssBTZ-20

---

Sorry Ben, your thinking is muddled. In Suzuki's case, the constant growth of the population -a concept that should have died with Malthus- must be replaced by a structured concept which acknowledges that the rate of growth will plateau around 2050 and decline thereafter. The challenges posed by these trends are: a) an increase in the volume of people living in cities and their suburban areas; and b) the gradual concentration of the human population into the 30-70 age group. The only practical way to fit these trends into sustainability is to take an holistic view which incorporates population trends with core issues such as water, food, housing, education and health.

As for Africa, the low level of industrialisation across the continent does mean that net contributions of greenouse gases are small relative to Europe and America, but Africa is hugely important for its forests which collectively make a real difference, and deforestation in central Africa is as critical an issue as it is in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia, and Siberia. In addition, the desertification that has reduced the agricultural potential of the Sahel in Africa, and soil erosion in other parts of the continent have played their roles in the heating up of the planet, so I don't see how you can claim Africa is some sort of passive victim, even if the worst excesses of climate change have already made life difficult there, and will make it potentially even more so.

These two articles on Africa may help you refine you argument:

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/cli...s-and-findings

http://www.boell.de/downloads/weltwe...urg_afrika.pdf

The U.S., Western Europe and Australia are in red on Dr. Harper’s map indicating they are regions where fertility is low. Presumably people in these regions feel less pressure to have large families. Perhaps because they feel they will not need to depend upon their children for their future economic security. They have pensions, savings, stocks, social security (or its equivalent) and government safety nets. Fewer children now, entails fewer child bearing adults in the near future. So the U.S., Western Europe and Australia are expected to remain in the red. Dr. Harper claims the red will expand; i.e. fertility will begin to decline in other regions. It seems that this can only happen if the factors that contribute to the economic security of Western nations also spread around the world. But it is just that economic security that correlates (imo) with an exponential increase in consumerism. I remain pessimistic that conditions of economic security conducive to low fertility rates will ever spread across the world. But suppose it happens. Can the Earth can long sustain 10 billion Western style consumers? It’s not even clear it can long sustain the Western style consumers who are currently eating away at the planet’s resources and changing its climate.

Happily it seems that a healthy, economically secure populace will of its own accord maintain a low fertility rate. But unhappily, if its economy should seriously fail and its safety nets disappear, I fear people will return to the security offered by having large families and fertility rates will once again rise. Of course populations don’t grow exponentially as Malthus maintains but rather logistically (i.e. they grow exponentially until they near the carrying capacity of the enviroment, the mortality rate rises and population painfully and asymptotically levels off. The question is, “Will 10 billion consumers create enough stress to initiate long term (perhaps permanent) world wide economic collapse?”

Quote:

---

The question is, “Will 10 billion consumers create enough stress to initiate long term (perhaps permanent) world wide economic

---

Or is ten billion the Goldilocks number;i.e. just right?

By the way, Dr. Sarah Harper reminds me of Amanda Tapping in the SyFy series Sactuary :)

Trish, I think that demography as presented by Sarah Harper can establish general trends in population growth, some of the more sensitive issues relate to specific cases where, for example, the USA will in the not too distant future, host a population whose majority have no ties to Europe or the English language -or for that matter, Italian, German, French and Polish. The problem is that issues like this become politicised when, for example, you read people's comments in the English papers that state their belief that in 20 years time 'we' will be dominated by 'them' -usually an absurd claim that 'they' are Muslims and 'we' will all be subject to Shari'a law. Demography aside, I think that there is no law that claims consumption must follow income growth, that as income grows more people insist on eating meat every day where before it was once a week; that they must own and drive a car where they used to take a bus -in Beijing most of the time the pace of traffic is the same whether you are in a car or a bus because the roads can't cope, etc.

But, if there is some odd mechanism that ultimately reduces continuous growth in the population through infertility, could the human race make significant changes to its 'daily grind' and first halt the problems established by climate change and resource management, and then move on to the creation (probably not consciously) of an equilibrium which preserves the natural world without denying humans entirely what they/we want? Or is this a dream?

Fertility rates can be voluntarily lowered (and they often are when individual economic security isn't tied to having a large family) without there being a biological mechanism that increases infertility. The hope is the we can create the right economic conditions (energy and food) for this to happen world wide and hopefully it wouldn't entail devouring the planet.

The demographers unfortunately forgot to include one sector of the populace in their analysis, namely vampires. If every vampire limited itself to turning only one human being into a vampire per year, still one vampire in less than 33 years could convert the entire population of Earth into immortals. A population of billions with a zero mortality rate could be an insurmountable problem.

The alarming thing about the first graph is that it’s faster than exponential growth. The doubling period diminishes as time progresses. The hopeful thing about the graph is that it indicates that population growth rates may be flexible. Indeed the second chart below shows that since about 1965 the world population growth rate has been declining.

Why? High mortality rate? Low fertility rate? Dr. Harper sides with the latter explanation. IMO it has more to due with human responses to the stresses and comforts of their environment than an as yet undiscovered mechanism that is making us infertile.

Suppose the prognostication is correct and the growth rate reaches 0.5% by 2050. That’s still exponential growth. If I’m interpreting the chart correctly it represents a doubling rate of 140 years. That’s encouraging. We haven’t seen that rate since the nineteenth century.

Still, without a mechanism to explain the chart, I find the prognostication difficult to accept.

Infertility is an interesting issue because it does not seem to affect all men but is differentiated across the globe; the implications if, for example, Arabs and Africans are less infertile than European and Asian men has both political and cultural implications. And yet, just as there was a moment I vaguely recall when the prediction of deaths from complications following infection by HIV was measured in global numbers that, mercifully have not followed, so there is now a claim that a new strain of flu could wipe out half the planet -though the arguments about a magnetic reversal of the poles wiping out life on earth -or changing it markedly so that we can no longer use computers or eat honey and smoked salmon are probably wild...the last link, on the emergence of Syphilis, is a fascinating example of how disease has shaped societies and culture...

-SuperFlu will kill 50%
http://www.doctortipster.com/6952-du...-millions.html

-Magnetic reversal
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/...oles-flip.html

Syphilis: Purple Flowers and Pain
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...x-fear-borgias

IMHO world population growth rates have declined because humans have become aware of the limitations the planet has to support them, governments in some countries have made population control a priority and in many western countries declining economic parity has made it difficult enough to raise large families that the practice diminished.

Whether it is state policy in China or economic conditions in the US the size of families is in decline. None of it fast enough to counteract the destructive nature of our carbon footprint.

The Koch Brothers don't care how hot it gets on east because it will only help them become adjusted to the temp they will experience in eternity.

Dept. Of Defense Warns Of The Dangers Of Climate Change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGQCpnyp6Ok

Pollution from car emissions killing millions in China and India

Study published by Lancet says surge in car use in south and east Asia killed 2.1m people prematurely in 2010:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hs-china-india

An interesting new book about climate change...

...??

...:)

Time for the Fossil Fuel Industry to pay for their Waste - YouTube

I don't personally buy into the Global Warming shenanigans. In fact, they've found the ice caps are melting MUCH slower than they had previously thought, and I rarely hear about it much these days. Seems like it was more sensationalized in the early 2000s. I'm sure the fossil fuels, and other gases emitted can't be good for the environment, but I don't think stopping the emissions is going to induce a complete turn around either. I think the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. Anywho, live your life. Drive a hybrid or something if you want, and bike to local destinations if you can. If more people did that, there would be less obesity as well, which is becoming endemic in the UK and USA. Kill two birds with one stone! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddygirl

I don't personally buy into the Global Warming shenanigans. In fact, they've found the ice caps are melting MUCH slower than they had previously thought, and I rarely hear about it much these days. Seems like it was more sensationalized in the early 2000s. I'm sure the fossil fuels, and other gases emitted can't be good for the environment, but I don't think stopping the emissions is going to induce a complete turn around either. I think the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. Anywho, live your life. Drive a hybrid or something if you want, and bike to local destinations if you can. If more people did that, there would be less obesity as well, which is becoming endemic in the UK and USA. Kill two birds with one stone! :D

---

Well, driving less has benefits like reducing pollution. And, too, people walking more and cycling more would hopefully reduce our obesity crisis.
Even Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, says it's real, it's happening. But the plan seems to be adaptation. So, we're going to adapt to it. Is it feasible?
I think we think -- or the likes of Tillerson and others -- that we're smart enough to deal with any challenges we're faced with.
I mean, if it isn't real, well, we've spent a bit of money doing things we should've done. But if it's real then what?
Plus maybe we should think about conserving oil -- for future generations.
But a lot of people believe there's an unlimited supply.

rex tillerson admits global warming is real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkuyY2FFR7c

.....
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...57894528_n.jpg

Get Ready for a Chaotic Climate Future - YouTube

More Thom Hartmann...

The Fossil Fuel Industry Needs to Pay for its Sins - YouTube

http://player.vimeo.com/video/691228...p;color=16bbe6

Former Mobil VP Warns of Fracking and Climate Change:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1...climate-change

Can Bill Gates Control the weather?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rfsz7M0mSg

Move your feet!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...d_science.html

Rapid Arctic thawing could be economic timebomb, scientists say

Methane released by a thinning permafrost may trigger catastrophic climate change and cost the world $60tn:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...climate-change

Poisoned By Plastic | Interview with Dianna Cohen - YouTube

Ben,
So good of you to keep on telling everyone about this. most people are burying their head in the sand!
Anyhow, I think that, whatever we do now, it seems to be too little and too late.
And , surely , whatever we do will be ineffective unless we address the overpopulation.
IMHO, of course!

Study: Watching Fox News Makes You Distrust Climate Scientists - YouTube

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/...-consequences/

Major Danish Daily Newspaper Warns: ‘Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences’!

Paper features Danish solar physicist Henrik Svensmark on the subject of the UN IPCC: '…many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun. … The IPCC is very one-sided, so I don’t think there will be anything reasonable in the next report.'

Also see: Report: Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! – Round Up of Current Global Cooling predictions – Climate Depot Exclusive Report
By P Gosselin on 9. August 2013

and,

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/m...-consequences/

The Jyllands-Posten quotes David Hathaway:
‘We now have the lowest solar activity in 100 years,’ David Hathaway from American space research institute NASA newly concluded in connection to the release of new figures for the sun’s activity. He said the activity for the ongoing cycle is half of the previous cycle, and he predicted an even lower activity for the next cycle, which will hit us in few years.”
Suddenly even the greenest of media outlets among us are contemplating what the consequences of a quiet sun may be. The JP then quotes Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who saysthese consequences could be dramatic:
It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age. It seems likely we are on the path to a period with very low solar activity, which could mean that we may have some very cold winters.”
Elliott then cites the ice-cold winters of 2009 and 2010 as early signs.
JP then cites at length Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who needs no introduction:
Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300. … Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun’s activity will also have influence the coming many years. … The unusual thing right now is that sun’s activity is decreasing while there’s a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in atime of decreasing solar activity. … The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease.”

[NB: the IPCC "one-sided"? You mean . . . biased? How could that be? They're a United Nations organization! They speak truth-to-power! They have nothing but the best interests of mankind at heart! Surely you jest by suggesting they could be misrepresenting data! For what purpose? . . . You mean, maybe as an excuse to impose as much socialism on as many economies as possible? Nah. Couldn't be.

It's true that the old Marxist excuse for imposing socialism — i.e., that capitalism exploits the worker by unfairly confiscating his "surplus value" and calling it "profit" — has been debunked long ago, and that workers have obviously prospered under capitalism. So a new crisis is needed. How about this one: capitalism (read: industrialism, technology, private property) has exploited Planet Earth. And since "there's only one planet Earth," we have to impose socialism and abolish private property in order to "save the planet." Hard to beat that excuse as a glamorous crisis to scare people!]

Here's the late, great George Carlin on that issue as manifested in the silliness of something called "Earth Day":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Miv4NHsDo]

What piffle Mr Clifford posts regularly here. I suspect that he is also a member of other forums where he evidences no interest whatsoever in the core interests of the forum, but simply sees it as a potential hunting ground to win support for his neo-con and rabid right wing views. He presents partial evidence whenever he posts.

Mr Clifford why are you in this forum at all?

It's just party line. The Limbaugh/Armey group is well funded & organized, & planted in every political forum on the web. All this crap comes straight out of that data base. It's all the same bullshit. Take a look. Could even be bots for all I know. What I do know is that engaging them as if they're actually human is an exercise in futility.

The dead giveaway is that he doesn't just support some variant of right-wing politics. He supports the GOP party line on every subject. A campaigner and professional propagandist.

At least he's shown us that our views of the GOP are not caricatures.

Solar activity is distinct from solar luminosity. Solar activity (local phenomena on the Sun's surface ranging from Sunspots to flares and the concomitant ejecta of high speed protons and neutrons that may take up to five days to reach the Earth) is distinct from solar luminosity (which is the flux electromagnetic energy, including ultraviolet and visible light, that takes only eight minutes to reach the Earth, heat it and deliver on the order of a thousand kilowatts of power per square Sunlit meter). The total energy of the former is swamped by that of the latter of orders of magnitude. The particulate ejecta of solar flares ionizes our high upper atmosphere and the high speed collisions create cosmic rays and auroras. Short wave enthusiasts detect this activity as a higher level of background noise. Remember those science projects in school where nerdy kids use Sunlight to brew tea? When was the last time you made a hot cup of tea at night using cosmic rays? How about aurora brewed coffee? The total energy delivered to the Earth by solar ejecta is dwarfed by the just the heat energy that is radiated at night by the warm Earth and trapped under layers of greenhouse gasses. That energy you can actually feel. Indeed the mathematical models that include solar ejecta in their calculations make the same effective predictions as those that exclude the phenomena. So a few years or even a century without Sunspot activity is not going have any cooling effect what-so-ever. Rotational precession cycles are what largely determine the comings and goings of "ice-ages." Sunspots, not so much.

Mr. Clifford and I agree on one thing. Science based on politics is hokum. Yet Mr. Clifford bases his scientific conclusions on the Libertarian-Conservative theory that modern climatology is a Marxist plot.:roll:

If he IS a bot then he is outta here darn soon. So Clifford... what you gotta say?