More evidence that we are messing up the climate

[hiphopnazi]

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.

A billion Africans have less of an impact that 330 Americans - Have a source?

Africa is still an issue and will become a larger issue as they're expected to become 1/3 of the population by 2100. - https://qz.com/africa/1099546/popul...ll-be-a-third-of-all-people-on-earth-by-2100/

 

[SmilinDesperado]

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).

I think it is useful for people that are knowledgeable, curious, and/or are willing to trust that the people that actually study this stuff know what they are talking about. But, I think it is less useful as a message to the population at large.
While the problems are different, they are linked and caused by the same wasteful mentality.
I think an overall 'Save the environment' message would be a lot more helpful in getting action on this because things like dirty water, desertification, extinction of species, etc, those things are all things that people can easily see and feel. There is no room to argue against the need for clean water, air, etc.
Climate change makes it sound like it's a problem out of human hands, and gives every dumb ass contrarian a chance to make arguments about science they know nothing about, or just throw up their hands and say " it's all in God's hands. "

 

[Possum Jenkins]

A billion Africans have less of an impact that 330 Americans - Have a source?

 

[MMAGA]

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

Could this be the reason for “global warming”? The sun’s expansion?

 

[Goonerview]

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.

You fail to acknowledge that Africa and India are increasing industrialising at very fast rates.

Soon, they will want to live like Americans.

 

[no fat chicks]

Could this be the reason for “global warming”? The sun’s expansion?

In a billion years, yes. In our lifetime or even 10 generations out, negligible. Google could have told you this. If your understanding is this elementary with regards to the discussion shouldn't you be deferring to what experts in the field agree upon?

 

[ocean size]

A billion Africans have less of an impact that 330 Americans - Have a source?

Africa is still an issue and will become a larger issue as they're expected to become 1/3 of the population by 2100. - https://qz.com/africa/1099546/popul...ll-be-a-third-of-all-people-on-earth-by-2100/

Different 'ecological footprint' calculators do it differently, but give it a google and every one will have African clocking in per capita at less than 1/3 of the US.

We also have limited control over other countries. We can't force anyone to wear condoms. and as I mentioned the best way to combat overpopulation is to raise living standards. As I mentioned there is some that can be done through economic development, education, empowering women, etc., but it would be easier and cheaper for the US to half their footprint than it would be to half the population in Africa (by non genocidal means).

 

[Gas121]

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

This is so narrow minded thinking I don't know where to start. No one is saying any of those things.

Stop consuming is a good start though. Just lolz at the masses buying shit they don't even need to impress people they do not even like. Consumerism is a real problem. Honestly I'm at age now where I couldn't give a rats ass what you own, living with less was the best choice I ever made.

 

[ocean size]

You fail to acknowledge that Africa and India are increasing industrialising at very fast rates.

Soon, they will want to live like Americans.

You aren't wrong. But as living standard increases, the silver lining is birth rates will decline some.

But your point is all the more reason we need the investment in clean energy tech. We aren't going to stop them from industrialising, but they could do it on renewable tech they are buying from us instead of on coal.

 

[Grassshoppa]

Co2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm on this planet and during that time life flourished fantastically well. Right now they are a bit over 400ppm. Co2 isn't a pollutant it's a resource, greenhouses buy machines that produce Co2 and pump it up to over 1000ppm to help plants grow. Plants that have more Co2 get bigger leaves, stems, and produce more food. Agricultural yields have increased with increasing Co2.

For all the talk of too much Co2 it's never mentioned that we were at a point during the last age where Co2 levels were about 200ppm and that plants die below 150ppm. Terrestrial life on this planet was pretty close to being extinguished if more Co2 hadn't been produced.

 

[Grassshoppa]

Science has already figured out how to make stuff to release into the air to eat CO2. They just won't release it because they make more money destroying the climate. It's sitting right next to the cure for cancer.

 

[Anewt]

Hey ... we aren't number 1 anymore ( Australian ) that's 2003. And drastically different due to the actions taken for 17 years.

2019 ecological footprint per person.
Country ecological biocapacity
Foot print
1

Luxembourg 15.82 1.68
2

Aruba 11.88 0.57
3

Qatar 10.8 1.24
4

Australia 9.31 16.57
5

United States 8.22 3.76
6

Canada 8.17 16.01

Biocapacity being how much the country has in produce/power etc

Biocapacity
Similar term(s): biological capacity.

Definition:
Biocapacity refers to the capacity of a given biologically productive area to generate an on-going supply of renewable resources and to absorb its spillover wastes.

Unsustainability occurs if the area’s ecological footprint exceeds its biocapacity.

You will find we actually have become a lot better but more improvement is required. But don't be blaming us for the climate lol

 

[hiphopnazi]

Different 'ecological footprint' calculators do it differently, but give it a google and every one will have African clocking in per capita at less than 1/3 of the US.

We also have limited control over other countries. We can't force anyone to wear condoms. and as I mentioned the best way to combat overpopulation is to raise living standards. As I mentioned there is some that can be done through economic development, education, empowering women, etc., but it would be easier and cheaper for the US to half their footprint than it would be to half the population in Africa (by non genocidal means).

Though I agree on most of your points except the 1 billion reference. This challenge is global and all countries need to do their share. African countries do not get a pass because they're stuck in the stone age.

 

[gatchaman]

Scientists compiled and analyzed millions of years worth of layers of sediment composed of forams. From these they analyzed levels of co2 throughout our planet's history. Surprise surprise, what we are seeing now is unprecedented.

https://www.livescience.com/oldest-climate-record-ever-cenozoic-era.html

The article refers to the Benthic Deep Sea Record as the epic new data from this article: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6509/1383

I have highlighted the record with a red circle. The image is in the blog post you linked (https://www.livescience.com/oldest-climate-record-ever-cenozoic-era.html), and a larger version can be seen here: https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2020/highfidelity.jpg

I don't think that your linked blog post title matches the data.

I don't think that your thread title "More evidence that we are messing up the climate" matches the data either unless you want to argue by apples-to-oranges comparison of Benthic Deep Sea Record to modern thermometer data. This would also assume that you would like to argue that the ideal unmessed-with-cimate is further descent into icehouse conditions.

 

[lifelessheap]

Complete BS, I live in California. we have fires every year. and my brother is a Fire fighter who's house burned down 2 years ago.

its CALIFORNIA's fault, they dont trim the foliage and the PG&E equipment is outdated and faulty.


Gavin Newsom and Pelosi are scum

LoL. You speak the truth. Drought killed hundreds of millions of trees and governor Brown refused to let them be harvested. He said let the bugs have them, and so trillions of.pounds.of.green napalm was left behind.

 

[ocean size]

The article refers to the Benthic Deep Sea Record as the epic new data from this article: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6509/1383

I have highlighted the record with a red circle. The image is in the blog post you linked (https://www.livescience.com/oldest-climate-record-ever-cenozoic-era.html), and a larger version can be seen here: https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2020/highfidelity.jpg

I don't think that your linked blog post title matches the data.

Incorrect, the newly published "Cenozoic Global Reference benthic foraminifer carbon and oxygen Isotope Dataset" from An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years extends 66 million years. It is the entire width of that section of the chart.

Spoiler

I'm assuming you thought that section was from the Benthic Deep-Sea Record because the label appears to be for that 9 million - present section of the chart. But that label from what I can tell corresponds to the entire black line, not a certain span of the x axis, and is placed there where it is next to the ice core label in the next pane. Note the thin blue line connecting the label to the line and the same on the ice core record section. If that is what happened, it is kind of odd, because if you thought that the benthic deep sea record was only the width of label, for some reason you circled in red only the most recent half of it.

 

[gatchaman]

Incorrect, the newly published "Cenozoic Global Reference benthic foraminifer carbon and oxygen Isotope Dataset" from An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years extends 66 million years. It is the entire width of that section of the chart.

Spoiler

I'm assuming you thought that section was from the Benthic Deep-Sea Record because the label appears to be for that 9 million - present section of the chart. But that label from what I can tell corresponds to the entire black line, not a certain span of the x axis, and is placed there where it is next to the ice core label in the next pane. Note the thin blue line connecting the label to the line and the same on the ice core record section. If that is what happened, it is kind of odd, because if you thought that the benthic deep sea record was only the width of label, for some reason you circled in red only the most recent half of it.

My apologies, I should have state that I have highlighted the most recent trend in the record (decreasing temperatures for the last 5 million years).

My point still stands. What part of this epic new data shows earth barelling to hothouse (the title of the blog post)? What part of this epic new data shows we are messing up the climate (the title of this thread)? This is another apples-to-oranges comparison between old proxy data with new thermometer data isn't it?

 

[ocean size]

My apologies, I should have state that I have highlighted the most recent trend in the record (decreasing temperatures for the last 5 million years).

My point still stands. What part of this epic new data shows earth barelling to hothouse (the title of the blog post)? What part of this epic new data shows we are messing up the climate (the title of this thread)? This is another apples-to-oranges comparison between old proxy data with new thermometer data isn't it?

I think its obvious, a new longer temperature record extending further into the past shows how many tens of millions of years you need to go back to reach mean temperatures that we could reach in the next couple hundred years based on the higher RCPs.

No interest in discussing your take on temperature proxies and thermometers, it has been done repeatedly (as anyone reading on can confirm with a quick forum search).

 

[gatchaman]

I think its obvious, a new longer temperature record extending further into the past shows how many tens of millions of years you need to go back to reach mean temperatures that we could reach in the next couple hundred years based on the higher RCPs.

No interest in discussing your take on temperature proxies and thermometers, it has been done repeatedly (as anyone reading on can confirm with a quick forum search).

I hope you will understand that "could reach" and "barrelling toward" are not at all equivalent to me.

So, my understanding (from the information presented in the blog post and the graph from the article) is that the "epic new" Benthic Deep Sea Record merely reinforces what was already known: That it was much warmer on Earth millions of years ago during the Eocene (a time referred also referred "hothouse" and "Eocene optimum") when our primate ancestors were presumably not driving SUVs but nonetheless thriving and spreading to new places (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum).

And nowhere does the "epic new" Benthic Deep Sea Record show a recent barrelling back towards the optimum hothouse condition.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

I'm sold on those "how many earths" charts. Pure science.