More evidence that we are messing up the climate

[Goonerview]

Maybe the people in those cities should set an example by living the most frugal lives possible, if they want others - such as the 2.5 billion commoners in India and China - to worry about their choice to live in those locations.

Both China and India have reached “peak child” and are below replacement levels of fertility. Their populations will soon naturally start declining.

Meanwhile, Africa still has on average 4.5 children per woman and are driving global population growth. Eventually, they are all going to want to live “like westerners”.

 

[rpn453]

Both China and India have reached “peak child” and are below replacement levels of fertility. Their populations will soon naturally start declining.

Meanwhile, Africa still has on average 4.5 children per woman and are driving global population growth. Eventually, they are all going to want to live “like westerners”.

Yep, so many billions of people that would do anything to live the life of a westerner in "poverty".

 

[Goonerview]

Yep, so many billions of people that would do anything to live the life of a westerner in "poverty".

What I mean is they will be living on western levels of consumption and CO2 production. I.e. driving cars, eating beef etc.

 

[TheComebackKid]

The land bridge lasted until roughly 11,000 BC, the last glacial period/ice age.

Ok, prove it...

 

[The Diplomat]

Ok, prove it...

If you don't believe in carbon dating, then anything within that realm is considered fake to you. But there comes a point when you have to accept that whether some people are nefarious or not, the majority of humankind wants to thrive and know more. Throughout history, we haven't taken no as an answer - whether through invention, the education of science, or otherwise. Humans won't take no for an answer, so even though carbon dating is a general estimate (give or take a few years), it's actually pretty accurate. The only downfall is our limited ability -it works by taking the oldest thing we can find, and using that as a base for determining the age of something younger than it.

 

[French Canadian]

The Sun has more to do with the Earth climate than people do, agreed?

Of course : without the sun it would be freezing here on Earth. However, people have the ability to change the climate juuuuust a little bit (couple of degrees Celcius) and that is enough to destabilize the ecosystem of the planet. Hope this helps !

 

[French Canadian]

It is nuts. And it is crazy that it has been turned into a left wing/right wing debate.
You don't need to comb through pages of peer reviewed research to see the obvious. There is no possible way that we can pollute the way that we do and it have no effect on the planet. It defies any kind of logic, reality, or common sense.
Where do these people think all their trash goes to? Think about how many water bottles, pepsi cans, and all other manners of trash that you go through in a week--and then remember that there's a few billion people on the planet throwing out and consuming just as much shit as you are.

I think it is useful for the conversation to separate climate change and pollution though. Everyone can understand that putting trash in the oceans is detrimental for fish. That does not require them to adhere to climate change. (Of course pollution can lead to climate change, for exemple when we cut forests in order to produce, or if we burn trash, but they, at least conceptually, can be neatly seperated).

 

[MMA Time Soldier]

What I mean is they will be living on western levels of consumption and CO2 production. I.e. driving cars, eating beef etc.

Long story short too many people are the biggest climate problem.
You can make all the green short cuts you want but people are the number one carbon producer.

The Biggest Threat to the Earth? We Have Too Many Kids
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/biggest-threat-earth-many-kids/

 

[no fat chicks]

What ever happened to the relatively-solid notion that the sun is a star that is continuously expanding?

I don't even know how to respond to this?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Don't know. But there are have been some rapid temperature changes in the past. Especially when the volcanoes start blowing, or the meteors hit.

Of course, when there's events like meteors, volcanoes and other disasters there will be rapid temperature changes, otherwise the Delta T will be gradual. The change in temperature these past 100 years without disasters would take around 1000 years normally (using the past 2 millenia as a reference), all this with solar irradiance dropping. How is this not anomalous?

I'm against changes which will greatly increase energy cost, either to the taxpayer because we are asked to heavily subsidize newer energies, or to the consumer by artifically reducing the energy supply through limiting what sorts of energy can be used. But when a green alternative is only marginally more expensive and works as well, I'd favor the green alternative. I favor low-cost solutions to easing the transition or burden, such as providing tax credits for installing solar panels, or home improvements designed to lower heating costs. I think companies like Tesla show that ingenuity will eventually replace the oil reliance without a new for crazy shit like a Green-New deal. Tesla is bringing electric vehicles that work every bit as well as conventional vehicles at a similar price into the mainstream. I see no reason to push back against that.

I don't think we're too far off on our ideas for solutions; I'd also favor subsidies for Carbon Capture technology. Are you weary of acknowledging AGW as a problem as to not embolden alarmists?

 

[matheuss92]

Wait a second is global warming real? Thats odd.

A sherdogger friend of mine told me the world would warm itself naturally, something like each 30k years. I even asked him why there is this warming trend since 1800 in a very fast pace and he told me it will be gone soon. Hope hes right

 

[no fat chicks]

When you join the Republican party this is what you will be hitching your wagon to.

We need more than two parties.

"Millions of years of sediment"

I’m sorry. I cannot get on board with man made climate change. The biggest climate change culprit is the Sun. We are heading into a huge heat run.

You have been duped that we can change that with money or not eating cows or not using CFCs.
You’re the government’s favourite person.

Remember when rainforests were going away and we had to stop using paper? Then plastic so we went back to paper?

It’s your personal carbon footprint that will save the world.
Not multi-billion dollar companies putting up more CO2 than every person that ever lived could ever put up in 12 lifetimes.

Ofcause it's unprecedented. They didn't have iPhones and planes 6000 years ago.

Still proves absolutely nothing.

 

[Goonerview]

Long story short too many people are the biggest climate problem.
You can make all the green short cuts you want but people are the number one carbon producer.

The Biggest Threat to the Earth? We Have Too Many Kids
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/biggest-threat-earth-many-kids/

We don’t, Africa does!

If it wasn’t for immigration, our populations would naturally be declining and houses would be affordable and there would be jobs aplenty and clean water, fresh food for everyone.

 

[Ophydian]

This thread is further proof that uneducated white males vote Republican.

 

[Ophydian]

When you join the Republican party this is what you will be hitching your wagon to.

We need more than two parties.

Two parties won’t save the fact that 40% of the population does not believe in man-made climate change and therefore the remaining 60% Are doomed to their interpretation of reality.

 

[no fat chicks]

We don’t, Africa does!

If it wasn’t for immigration, our populations would naturally be declining and houses would be affordable and there would be jobs aplenty and clean water, fresh food for everyone.

Wrong. While we do need to have negative pop growth for us to live comfortably on this planet imo. There's going to be a huge burden to out health care system keeping all these geezers alive. Especially if they're the majority of our pop.

 

[hiphopnazi]

Overpopulation, deforestation and e-waste should also be major talking points but seem to never mentioned as much as Co2. I may have missed a couple others too.

July this year -

Spoiler: Mauritius Oil Spill

https://abcnews.go.com/International/photos-tanker-oil-spill-catastrophe-mauritius/story?id=72474911

Amazon Deforestation -

Spoiler: Amazon Forest

https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html

Overpopulation should be a talking point as its interconnected to all environmental facets but remains a taboo subject because those that breed uncontrollably cannot be discussed and are free from criticism.

Simply becomes political when it shouldn't be.

 

[ocean size]

And if future generations need to move NYC and Miami, that's fine. They will not be the first cities that humans have had to abandon to natural disaster and they won't be the last. Since the industrial revolution, human population has exploded and lifespans have dramatically risen. I'd rather a few beachfront hotels have to relocate a little than the entire world face austerity measures from a Green New Deal.

Lol it's not a few beachfront hotels mate. Petro companies want the feds to build them a tens of billions seawall in the gulf. Military bases in the south east estimate they need tens of billions for maintaining mission readiness. More extreme weather drives more humanitarian crises and more pressure on the borders- even with a perfect wall on the US border that's still a drain and a destabilser on the region and trade partners. Spend a few trillion now and get less pollution and less tax on the healthcare system out of it and a lot of jobs among other benefits, or spend more later trying to play catch-up

https://climateandsecurity.org/a-security-threat-assessment-of-global-climate-change/

Also regarding 'point of no return' - the concept of positive feedback isn't, unphysical is it? There may be a theoretical return with sufficient negative forcing, plausibility given human resources is the issue. hypothetical ex: if we need the albedo of snow to moderate climate in a world with accelerating snow loss, not very practical for us to spray paint large swaths of the earth white.

 

[lifelessheap]

Agree amazing how dumb people still are denying all this. No wonder the planet is bleeding because people are still narrow minded and let's say dumb as fuck.

I love a good conspiracy but climate change is undeniable. In my mind its the biggest problem we face today but unfortunately is at back of the list.

Stop driving. Stop eating. Stop buying things. Stop breathing. You are hurting mother Earth.

 

[ocean size]

Overpopulation, deforestation and e-waste should also be major talking points but seem to never mentioned as much as Co2. I may have missed a couple others too.

July this year -

Spoiler: Mauritius Oil Spill

https://abcnews.go.com/International/photos-tanker-oil-spill-catastrophe-mauritius/story?id=72474911

Amazon Deforestation -

Spoiler: Amazon Forest

https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html

Overpopulation should be a talking point as its interconnected to all environmental facets but remains a taboo subject because those that breed uncontrollably cannot be discussed and are free from criticism.

Simply becomes political when it shouldn't be.

On the ground overpopulation is being addressed more than you think, it's just not something that needs to be affected inside developed western countries where populations are decreasing. One of the best ways to do it is empower women and raise standards of living, birth rates start declining on their own. The gates foundation is active in this area.

Addressing overpopulation also is not enough. We could cut the world's population in half, but if they all lived like Americans the problem would be even worse. A billion Africans have less of an impact that 330 Americans. With the existing worlds population we could live sustainably with a reduced footprint.