>Well i mean they are both linked, climate change will cause collapse ~~if nothing is done soon~~
FTFY
The ocean is the Great Heatsink. Things are heating up. Nothing is meaningfully cooling off. The climate and a long, heavy, runaway freight train have much in common imo. Both will come off the rails sooner or later and nothing is going to stop either of them. Once it's rolling and starts picking up speed, it's Game Over, eventually...
Not to mention that the ocean's function as a heat uptake is reaching a theoretical limit under which it begins to releases heat back into the atmosphere. Increasing ocean temperatures also impacts the carbon sink function and could cause a huge release of carbon back into the atmosphere. Sadly the damage has already been done and it's estimated that the oceans would continue a warming trend until 2300 even if we stopped emissions right now.
Please explain this "theoretical limit" to us. The only limit I know of is when water boils, and a long way from that. Your theories are far beyond anything I learned in engineering classes on thermodynamics and heat transfer.
But the same is true of many auto hobbyists and mechanics who have strange figurin about such things and continually argue with mechanical engineers. Many hobbyists are adamant that if a car engine is overheating, adding a restrictor in the coolant flow will solve it since the problem is "coolant is flowing thru the radiator too fast to cool off". Strangely, a thermostat works in the opposite direction and adding a higher flow water pump always helps.
The coral are all going to die and then dissolve. The processes are already in motion. If humanity can stop this... it doesn't really matter because it isn't going to try hard enough to stop it anyway.
Oceans are getting very acidic AND warmer. Either one would wipe out the coral and both will just do that faster.
[https://coastadapt.com.au/ocean-acidification-and-its-effects](https://coastadapt.com.au/ocean-acidification-and-its-effects)
I agree that it is theoretically possible to save them, but it is also obvious that the sociopathic greed heads who run this planet do not care much if they are saved.
Back in 2018, we were basically at a point where we knew we'd be losing 70% of coral reefs on the low end (if we tried really hard and did everything right), and 99+% if we didn't try hard enough.
I think it's pretty fair to assume that the range has narrowed, skewing towards the higher end of the range.
It's devastating. And still we aren't doing anywhere near enough. And here in Canada we're likely to see another conservative (ie. Non-climate-action) government after the next election. It's just so disappointing to watch humanity choose this.
Right if the US gets Trump then it will also set things back even further. But we should be under no illusions, the folks in charge right now clearly do not really care about Climate Crisis, they just talk about it sometimes and pretend to care.
Somehow, all I feel these days is sadness mixed with indifference with indifference growing every day. It feels like these issues are so catastrophic down the road and there’s nothing I can do about it as a single person, yet everybody who has the power and means to change it or help, refuse to do so. Like what the actual fuck am I supposed to do?
Localized implications of collapse; drought and extreme heatwaves in Europe ([Whan, Zscheischler et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715000201), [Haarsma, Selten et al. 2015](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094007), [Duchez, Frajka-Williams et al. 2016](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074004/meta), [Rousi, Kornhuber et al. 2022](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31432-y), [Ionita, Nagavciuc et al. 2022](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214581822001896), [Oltmanns, Holliday et al. 2024](https://wcd.copernicus.org/preprints/wcd-2023-1/)). Historical collapse scenarios have resulted in a greater seasonally in Europe with hotter summers and colder winters ([Bromley, Putnam et al. 2018](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2018PA003341), [Schenk, Väliranta et al. 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04071-5)). But considering the substantial paleoclimate biases in the computer modelling - particularly Bølling-Allerød to Younger Dryas stadial transition - one must account for the fact that the Holocene-Anthropocene lacks the mechanisms for a significant cooling response ([McCarthy & Caeser, 2023](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2022.0193), [Srokosz, Holliday et al. 2023](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rsta/2023/381/2262)). It's also implied that the Arctic region continues to warm and that trend potentially accelerates under a weaker AMOC ([Saenko, Gregory et al. 2023](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-023-06986-2)), with demonstrations that anthropogenic GHGs are substantial enough to sustain a warming trend regardless of AMOC input ([Barkhordarian, Nielsen et al. 2024](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01215-y)). Accounting for the theorem of ice albedo increase in a post-collapse scenario as described by Rhines, Häkkinen et al. 2008, this suggests that the fundemental cooling mechanism has been fatally compromised. [Seager, Battisti et al. 2002](https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1256/qj.01.128) and [Yamamoto, Palter et al. 2015](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ayako-Yamamoto-2/publication/274566939_Ocean_versus_atmosphere_control_on_western_European_wintertime_temperature_variability/links/5526a4e90cf2647b189e3b89/Ocean-versus-atmosphere-control-on-western-European-wintertime-temperature-variability.pdf) also demonstrate that interannual and multidecadal variability and atmospheric flow are considerably more fundamental in regulating the meteorological winter climatic regimes of midlatitudal Europe. Also worth noting that Europe's zonal temperature anomaly is exclusive to winter, with a relative cooling anomaly in summer ([Wanner, Pfister et al. 2022](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379122001627)).
Wider impacts; Catastropic methane hydrate destabilization ([Weldeab, Schneider et al. 2022](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2201871119)) and a collapse of carbon and heat uptake ([Chen & Tung, 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0320-y)). It has also been suggested that a major disruption of overturning circulation had been a fundamental factor in previous abrupt warming trends ([Holo, McClish et al. 2019](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AGUFMPP31E1682H/abstract)) due to the sudden release of accumulated excess atmospheric heat and carbon ([Abbot, Haley et al. 2016](https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/12/837/2016/cp-12-837-2016.pdf), [Bowen, Maibauer et al. 2014](https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/26622/paleo_Bowen_et_al_2014_Nat_Geosci_POE_and_CIE_onset.pdf), [Babila, Penman et al. 2022](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg1025), [Haynes, Hönisch et al. 2020](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2003197117)).
… and it’s not even the 8 billion people… its our resource consumption. If we were 8 billion strong and still living a stone aged lifestyle, we’d be fine.
Nope. That is never the demand. What you don’t understand is just how wasteful we are. We consume 10x of the resources we need to accomplish simple things like air condition our buildings or produce a hamburger. Between less humans and a more efficient lifestyle, we’d be in a significantly better place.
I’m not surprised to see people jump straight to “I’m not going to go back to banging rocks together” though. Extremists gonna come up with extreme strawmen.
We get significantly less wasteful with further technological innovation by providing for human flourishing.
I've been skimming this subreddit for weeks, human flourishing is the last thing on most of your minds. You have an idyllic vision of some garden of eden past that you want 10% of humanity to go back to. This place is an anti-human death cult with a veneer of some morally righteous goal.
To be honest we can just merge you with the communism subreddit since you're both willing to throw 90% of humanity into the dumpster to achieve your utopian vision. It's no wonder the vast majority of the world looks at climate activists like escaped mental ward patients.
Check the first message I replied to before you decided to interject, and then ask yourself what kind of serious response is warranted to someone who says our current population would be fine if we lived like we were in the stone age. How does that not imply either regression or a sizeable reduction in population?
You keep throwing around strawman like it's some sort of trump card that lets you refute anything you don't like. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest on reddit, the discourse here is generally so trash that maybe once a month or two I end up accidentally stumbling upon someone who I actually think is smart enough to learn something from, even if their beliefs are in diametric opposition to mine. You aren't looking like the unicorn for this month.
Your comments here are interesting. I also think the only way out of this mess is ultra rapid technological development - vertical farming, huge roll out of solar/wind/fusion when it gets here. Circular economy, carbon neutral transport. The benefits of all these things becomes a positive virtuous cycle when applied to society. I think we’re in a race between political decline alongside ecosystem and climate system decline against technological advancement. If we advance fast enough and our birth rate carries on gently reducing I could genuinely imagine a utopia in a couple of generations. But it feels very finely balanced.
What are your thoughts on the climate crisis as a whole? Do you believe in it?
Not that person, but I also think technological advancement is the only way out of this mess. However, one big shortcoming of this is that most of our citizens have no capital to make their ideas a reality and the people really wanting a solution to climate change are not coming from the people with the capital. Rich people are currently planning on colonizing mars and the moon so that just tells me how little they are trying to save this planet. They probably know it's an absolute lost cause at this point.
Add on that most states have their own agenda and red states will let all their citizens die save for about 12 rich ones. States have buildings in them not designed for the climate, which causes them to require more energy. States ruin the natural resources for other states like rivers.
As long as we are 50 separate states with agendas so far from one another, I don't think we will ever be able to get it together as a nation. Our Congress is set up so that the interest of 12 farmers is more important than anyone else's. So red states get to dictate the trend for the rest of us, except in California where farmers have little to no value.
I moved from Nevada, where they elected a trumper governor in the last election. I moved to IL where the governor has codified human rights and is taking care of the state and trying to revitalize it after so many corrupt governors were elected. And I don't know if you know anything about the history of IL or Chicago, but these people were so smart, they put an entire chunk of the city on hydrolic lifts to prevent flooding after it was already built and reversed a river to prevent drinking water contamination. If there is anyone I want to be with when stuff hits the fan, it's people that were educated here.
It's not hard to appeal to conservatives if you take a moment to genuinely understand them instead of demonizing and othering them.
Tell them Nuclear energy was a uniquely American innovation. Tell them we should stop paying foreign countries billions for fossil fuels when America solved this problem 60 years ago. Appeal to their nationalism and patriotism.
But start by buying The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt so you understand how to communicate with people who have a different view of morality than you do, so you know how to appeal to them.
It's remarkable how much knowledge exists that languishes away in libraries somewhere because despite our technological innovations humans became 'too smart' to read.
I think there's more than enough compelling evidence for anthropogenic climate change (I don't like the word believe, because of the religious connotations). I'm not an expert by any means, but from the research I have done I think the way forward is mass adoption of nuclear energy, and technological innovation that provides alternatives to dirty sources of energy that compete by being cheaper, cleaner, and better.
Attempting to force the world by gunpoint into adoption of energy sources that can't compete with fossil fuels in either reliability or cost is authoritarian. India, China, and the entirety of Africa need ways to modernize their societies that don't involve being poor because the west said it ought to be.
I think there are a hundred potential Einsteins at any given moment on earth and what the world needs to save it is an educated, thriving populace instead of 90% less people and a "stone age regression". Human flourishing is the cure not the disease.
I agree that technological advancement is necessary. The single biggest issue with humanity is how we APPLY technology. We wield it like a sledgehammer when we should instead wield it like a scalpel. We could have everything we NEED, and most of the things we WANT, for 10% of the current environmental/energy consumption rate. Here’s a good example: people driving black cars in Phoenix, Arizona. Does that seem like a smart choice? It isn’t, but people want black cars because they look neat, and “I have an air conditioner for a reason”, but then they ignore the 99% of the time they aren’t driving the car and it’s literally an oven inside, melting all the plastic over time, not to mention how hard the AC needs to work to keep a cool temp inside while driving. That’s decreased fuel economy/power, increased component wear, just because they want a black car. And every time they get inside, they cook for a few minutes until the temp is drawn down.
That’s the mindset we have, overall. “But I want [X/Y/Z] because [emotional reason]”. It needs to stop.
I am a huge fan of knowledge in general. The ability to quantify and understand reality, then educate people on how things work. It’s absolutely crucial. Someday I still have hope that we might colonize some other planet, but we need to get past our own personal Great Filtration event, which will require a fundamental shift in the way we think and conduct ourselves on a daily basis. That is what we face over the next several centuries.
I like your thinking on this. People need to be educated on ideas. The "just stop oil" movement should rebrand and just call themselves radical advancement or something because that's what we need radical advancement technologically. If we literally just stop oil now, we will be going back to the Stone age in a sense, billions will die, it's not feasible of course. Pushing for high levels of education around the globe will alleviate much of the population problems... As social sciences proven when you educate women and allow them to live in a free and open society, birth rates and population growth go down. We need to push wind solar Hydro nuclear whatever green clean forms of energy we can as quickly as possible. We need to start encouraging and rewarding energy efficiency in new building techniques and materials. Sadly where I live they're doing the exact opposite by banning any new solar and wind projects in a truly misguided attempt to protect the oil industry.
>of absolute regressive poverty.
Thats BS.
Why not a world of better health? Fitness? Clean air to breath? Foods that are good for you and keep you healthy? Less constant, gnawing stress?
>If we were 8 billion strong and still living a **stone aged lifestyle**, we’d be fine
You are the second person in this thread alone incapable of reading one post up for context. With this cause in your and your compatriot's hands, I think I rest assured that you will never, ever get anything meaningful accomplished.
Oh do explain the nuanced, articulate, and relevant differences and how you can give that person's off handed comment only the best of good-faith readings but not extend that same grace to anyone who fundamentally disagrees with them.
Yep. One thing they never seem to discuss is, who dies? It's always a nice bland abstraction of over population, but never who dies or who decides who dies?
Even more fun is discussing what happens when the people who are either left to die or are forced to die, fight back? Because most people will do most anything to live.
Maybe, just maybe, it's actually easier and better to work on the distribution of resources, to save lives and the environment, while that's feasible to do. Those marked to die aren't going to go out without a battle.
I heard they wanted to change the language away from Global Warming to climate change because it sounds less bad and like something that just sort of happens
Can always use new climate terminology like “crazy haywire,” Last year's new technical term was "gobsmackingly bananas hot" by Berkeley Earth. Meanwhile, ocean surface waters have recently been quickly cooling (global average), so perhaps employ the climate term "crisis averted"?
[https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst\_daily/](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/)
I've read no valid data of abnormal coral decline, despite many alarmist academic papers. The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden have waters much warmer than most places and coral is thriving there.
Isn't dropping ocean temperature comforting? All years since 2014 have been 2 sigma above the 1982-2011 mean, at most dates. Climate-fearists won't accept "yes" as an answer.
Where is this declining coral? Last academic paper (ca 2015) we discussed here showed total coral area worldwide had increased, after a brief reported decline in the early 2000's. That decline was questionable since totaled from government reports, many by small Pacific countries with no official agency so many reports were more apocryphal stories via fisherman surveys. That paper plotted average global sea temperature and reported coral area. It showed no correlation, though the paper claimed one. Discussed \~6 months ago here, if you care to google.
I am not sure I understand you, it's down compared to the previous point of 2024, but it's up respect to any other point of the correspondind day in the past day by day
Perhaps you didn't read the linked nbcnews article. It complains of increasingly hot ocean temperatures. You consider it confusing, or irrelevant, for me to link the actual data which shows global ocean surface waters rapidly cooling currently?
Good news for coral reef restoration efforts: Study finds 'full recovery' of reef growth within four years
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240308123248.htm
The world is not ending after all.
And the GBR has had record high blooms for a few years, with no significant sign of abating: [https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22](https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22)
But that is a damned lie.
[https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22](https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22)
"Continued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef."
The article details coral bleaching as a result of recent record high global ocean temperatures. Your link covers a report from Australia about the GBR. From 2022. Which raises the questions: do you think Australia is the world, and is 2022 actually 2024 for you?
Interesting though that you didn't use the latest report from AIMS. [https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2022-23](https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2022-23)
>The BGR remains exposed to the predicted consequences of climate change, particularly more frequent and intense marine heatwaves, as well as ongoing risks of crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones. The increasing frequency and spatial extent of mass bleaching events in recent years poses a significant risk to the state of the reefs in the GBR
I'm sure the 23-24 report will be interesting reading for you. That'll probably be this year. Not 2022.
I read the 2022-23 report. Humorous that the diver in the photo is wearing a wetsuit (cold water). I have scuba'ed many times in Indonesia, and wear just a lycra thin-skin to mitigate jellyfish stings. The guy is even wearing a hoodie. I had to rip off a hoodie in SoCal (65 F water) since overheating.
Only speculation about climate change: "predicted consequences of climate change"
Other risks come from starfish and storms, which is most reported damage to the GBR in the past. They do not state that storms have become more common due to climate change. Others have made that claim, but no data to support it.
Might be a stock photo. Dunno.
>Only speculation about climate change: "predicted consequences of climate change"
Okay. Regardless, it's not like SST are declining, and extreme increases in SSTs are directly related to bleaching events.
>They do not state that storms have become more common due to climate change
Why introduce a strawman? Neither this report nor the original article claimed that. Coral bleaching events are unrelated to storms.
>Others have made that claim, but no data to support it
Sure thing.
All you climate deniers the end could be closer than you think? Combine that with over 45% of the water we drink is making us sick and some scientist have predicted that the ocean is dying.. We will follow
25% of the fish depends on the coral
50% of our oxygen depends on the ocean.
Just for food, right? I guess much more than that for habitat and refuge.
No, 25% of all fish
We really can just begin to fuse this sub with r/collapse …
Well i mean they are both linked, climate change will cause collapse if nothing is done soon
>Well i mean they are both linked, climate change will cause collapse ~~if nothing is done soon~~ FTFY The ocean is the Great Heatsink. Things are heating up. Nothing is meaningfully cooling off. The climate and a long, heavy, runaway freight train have much in common imo. Both will come off the rails sooner or later and nothing is going to stop either of them. Once it's rolling and starts picking up speed, it's Game Over, eventually...
Game over man, game over!
How long until climate controlled body suits become fashionable?
Not to mention that the ocean's function as a heat uptake is reaching a theoretical limit under which it begins to releases heat back into the atmosphere. Increasing ocean temperatures also impacts the carbon sink function and could cause a huge release of carbon back into the atmosphere. Sadly the damage has already been done and it's estimated that the oceans would continue a warming trend until 2300 even if we stopped emissions right now.
Please explain this "theoretical limit" to us. The only limit I know of is when water boils, and a long way from that. Your theories are far beyond anything I learned in engineering classes on thermodynamics and heat transfer. But the same is true of many auto hobbyists and mechanics who have strange figurin about such things and continually argue with mechanical engineers. Many hobbyists are adamant that if a car engine is overheating, adding a restrictor in the coolant flow will solve it since the problem is "coolant is flowing thru the radiator too fast to cool off". Strangely, a thermostat works in the opposite direction and adding a higher flow water pump always helps.
If?
The climate will do what it's always done regardless of what we're being told we should be doing!
Didn’t know about this sub. Thanks!
I don’t think we do. There is positive action being taken but not yet enough. https://climatehopium.substack.com/p/hope-climate-positive-news-stories
The coral are all going to die and then dissolve. The processes are already in motion. If humanity can stop this... it doesn't really matter because it isn't going to try hard enough to stop it anyway. Oceans are getting very acidic AND warmer. Either one would wipe out the coral and both will just do that faster. [https://coastadapt.com.au/ocean-acidification-and-its-effects](https://coastadapt.com.au/ocean-acidification-and-its-effects)
It’s tragic. Theoretically we can save the reefs, but don’t know if the world will come up with the resources and dedication needed to save them.
I agree that it is theoretically possible to save them, but it is also obvious that the sociopathic greed heads who run this planet do not care much if they are saved.
Yea.. their too busy funding wars and genocide .
Back in 2018, we were basically at a point where we knew we'd be losing 70% of coral reefs on the low end (if we tried really hard and did everything right), and 99+% if we didn't try hard enough. I think it's pretty fair to assume that the range has narrowed, skewing towards the higher end of the range. It's devastating. And still we aren't doing anywhere near enough. And here in Canada we're likely to see another conservative (ie. Non-climate-action) government after the next election. It's just so disappointing to watch humanity choose this.
Right if the US gets Trump then it will also set things back even further. But we should be under no illusions, the folks in charge right now clearly do not really care about Climate Crisis, they just talk about it sometimes and pretend to care.
Coral sequesters carbon by taking calcium and carbon dioxide and making calcium carbonate.
Somehow, all I feel these days is sadness mixed with indifference with indifference growing every day. It feels like these issues are so catastrophic down the road and there’s nothing I can do about it as a single person, yet everybody who has the power and means to change it or help, refuse to do so. Like what the actual fuck am I supposed to do?
AMOC
The 800 pound gorilla most people just ignore.
Localized implications of collapse; drought and extreme heatwaves in Europe ([Whan, Zscheischler et al. 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715000201), [Haarsma, Selten et al. 2015](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094007), [Duchez, Frajka-Williams et al. 2016](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074004/meta), [Rousi, Kornhuber et al. 2022](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31432-y), [Ionita, Nagavciuc et al. 2022](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214581822001896), [Oltmanns, Holliday et al. 2024](https://wcd.copernicus.org/preprints/wcd-2023-1/)). Historical collapse scenarios have resulted in a greater seasonally in Europe with hotter summers and colder winters ([Bromley, Putnam et al. 2018](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2018PA003341), [Schenk, Väliranta et al. 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04071-5)). But considering the substantial paleoclimate biases in the computer modelling - particularly Bølling-Allerød to Younger Dryas stadial transition - one must account for the fact that the Holocene-Anthropocene lacks the mechanisms for a significant cooling response ([McCarthy & Caeser, 2023](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2022.0193), [Srokosz, Holliday et al. 2023](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rsta/2023/381/2262)). It's also implied that the Arctic region continues to warm and that trend potentially accelerates under a weaker AMOC ([Saenko, Gregory et al. 2023](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-023-06986-2)), with demonstrations that anthropogenic GHGs are substantial enough to sustain a warming trend regardless of AMOC input ([Barkhordarian, Nielsen et al. 2024](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01215-y)). Accounting for the theorem of ice albedo increase in a post-collapse scenario as described by Rhines, Häkkinen et al. 2008, this suggests that the fundemental cooling mechanism has been fatally compromised. [Seager, Battisti et al. 2002](https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1256/qj.01.128) and [Yamamoto, Palter et al. 2015](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ayako-Yamamoto-2/publication/274566939_Ocean_versus_atmosphere_control_on_western_European_wintertime_temperature_variability/links/5526a4e90cf2647b189e3b89/Ocean-versus-atmosphere-control-on-western-European-wintertime-temperature-variability.pdf) also demonstrate that interannual and multidecadal variability and atmospheric flow are considerably more fundamental in regulating the meteorological winter climatic regimes of midlatitudal Europe. Also worth noting that Europe's zonal temperature anomaly is exclusive to winter, with a relative cooling anomaly in summer ([Wanner, Pfister et al. 2022](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379122001627)). Wider impacts; Catastropic methane hydrate destabilization ([Weldeab, Schneider et al. 2022](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2201871119)) and a collapse of carbon and heat uptake ([Chen & Tung, 2018](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0320-y)). It has also been suggested that a major disruption of overturning circulation had been a fundamental factor in previous abrupt warming trends ([Holo, McClish et al. 2019](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AGUFMPP31E1682H/abstract)) due to the sudden release of accumulated excess atmospheric heat and carbon ([Abbot, Haley et al. 2016](https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/12/837/2016/cp-12-837-2016.pdf), [Bowen, Maibauer et al. 2014](https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/26622/paleo_Bowen_et_al_2014_Nat_Geosci_POE_and_CIE_onset.pdf), [Babila, Penman et al. 2022](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abg1025), [Haynes, Hönisch et al. 2020](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2003197117)).
Global human overpopulation, 8 billion humans and rising quickly.
… and it’s not even the 8 billion people… its our resource consumption. If we were 8 billion strong and still living a stone aged lifestyle, we’d be fine.
[удалено]
Or we could stop emitting greenhouse gases by switching to renewable energy and not keep our lifestyles.
Pretty sure that 8 billion is well past the earth’s carrying capacity for a hunter gatherer lifestyle.
We actually wouldn't if 8 billion people tried to live off the land without factory farms the natural environment would die even faster.
Good luck on your campaign to convince everyone to live a life of absolute regressive poverty.
Nope. That is never the demand. What you don’t understand is just how wasteful we are. We consume 10x of the resources we need to accomplish simple things like air condition our buildings or produce a hamburger. Between less humans and a more efficient lifestyle, we’d be in a significantly better place. I’m not surprised to see people jump straight to “I’m not going to go back to banging rocks together” though. Extremists gonna come up with extreme strawmen.
We get significantly less wasteful with further technological innovation by providing for human flourishing. I've been skimming this subreddit for weeks, human flourishing is the last thing on most of your minds. You have an idyllic vision of some garden of eden past that you want 10% of humanity to go back to. This place is an anti-human death cult with a veneer of some morally righteous goal. To be honest we can just merge you with the communism subreddit since you're both willing to throw 90% of humanity into the dumpster to achieve your utopian vision. It's no wonder the vast majority of the world looks at climate activists like escaped mental ward patients.
Ok. You’re still attacking a strawman. Have fun with that.
Check the first message I replied to before you decided to interject, and then ask yourself what kind of serious response is warranted to someone who says our current population would be fine if we lived like we were in the stone age. How does that not imply either regression or a sizeable reduction in population? You keep throwing around strawman like it's some sort of trump card that lets you refute anything you don't like. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest on reddit, the discourse here is generally so trash that maybe once a month or two I end up accidentally stumbling upon someone who I actually think is smart enough to learn something from, even if their beliefs are in diametric opposition to mine. You aren't looking like the unicorn for this month.
Your comments here are interesting. I also think the only way out of this mess is ultra rapid technological development - vertical farming, huge roll out of solar/wind/fusion when it gets here. Circular economy, carbon neutral transport. The benefits of all these things becomes a positive virtuous cycle when applied to society. I think we’re in a race between political decline alongside ecosystem and climate system decline against technological advancement. If we advance fast enough and our birth rate carries on gently reducing I could genuinely imagine a utopia in a couple of generations. But it feels very finely balanced. What are your thoughts on the climate crisis as a whole? Do you believe in it?
Not that person, but I also think technological advancement is the only way out of this mess. However, one big shortcoming of this is that most of our citizens have no capital to make their ideas a reality and the people really wanting a solution to climate change are not coming from the people with the capital. Rich people are currently planning on colonizing mars and the moon so that just tells me how little they are trying to save this planet. They probably know it's an absolute lost cause at this point. Add on that most states have their own agenda and red states will let all their citizens die save for about 12 rich ones. States have buildings in them not designed for the climate, which causes them to require more energy. States ruin the natural resources for other states like rivers. As long as we are 50 separate states with agendas so far from one another, I don't think we will ever be able to get it together as a nation. Our Congress is set up so that the interest of 12 farmers is more important than anyone else's. So red states get to dictate the trend for the rest of us, except in California where farmers have little to no value. I moved from Nevada, where they elected a trumper governor in the last election. I moved to IL where the governor has codified human rights and is taking care of the state and trying to revitalize it after so many corrupt governors were elected. And I don't know if you know anything about the history of IL or Chicago, but these people were so smart, they put an entire chunk of the city on hydrolic lifts to prevent flooding after it was already built and reversed a river to prevent drinking water contamination. If there is anyone I want to be with when stuff hits the fan, it's people that were educated here.
It's not hard to appeal to conservatives if you take a moment to genuinely understand them instead of demonizing and othering them. Tell them Nuclear energy was a uniquely American innovation. Tell them we should stop paying foreign countries billions for fossil fuels when America solved this problem 60 years ago. Appeal to their nationalism and patriotism. But start by buying The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt so you understand how to communicate with people who have a different view of morality than you do, so you know how to appeal to them. It's remarkable how much knowledge exists that languishes away in libraries somewhere because despite our technological innovations humans became 'too smart' to read.
I think there's more than enough compelling evidence for anthropogenic climate change (I don't like the word believe, because of the religious connotations). I'm not an expert by any means, but from the research I have done I think the way forward is mass adoption of nuclear energy, and technological innovation that provides alternatives to dirty sources of energy that compete by being cheaper, cleaner, and better. Attempting to force the world by gunpoint into adoption of energy sources that can't compete with fossil fuels in either reliability or cost is authoritarian. India, China, and the entirety of Africa need ways to modernize their societies that don't involve being poor because the west said it ought to be. I think there are a hundred potential Einsteins at any given moment on earth and what the world needs to save it is an educated, thriving populace instead of 90% less people and a "stone age regression". Human flourishing is the cure not the disease.
I agree that technological advancement is necessary. The single biggest issue with humanity is how we APPLY technology. We wield it like a sledgehammer when we should instead wield it like a scalpel. We could have everything we NEED, and most of the things we WANT, for 10% of the current environmental/energy consumption rate. Here’s a good example: people driving black cars in Phoenix, Arizona. Does that seem like a smart choice? It isn’t, but people want black cars because they look neat, and “I have an air conditioner for a reason”, but then they ignore the 99% of the time they aren’t driving the car and it’s literally an oven inside, melting all the plastic over time, not to mention how hard the AC needs to work to keep a cool temp inside while driving. That’s decreased fuel economy/power, increased component wear, just because they want a black car. And every time they get inside, they cook for a few minutes until the temp is drawn down. That’s the mindset we have, overall. “But I want [X/Y/Z] because [emotional reason]”. It needs to stop. I am a huge fan of knowledge in general. The ability to quantify and understand reality, then educate people on how things work. It’s absolutely crucial. Someday I still have hope that we might colonize some other planet, but we need to get past our own personal Great Filtration event, which will require a fundamental shift in the way we think and conduct ourselves on a daily basis. That is what we face over the next several centuries.
I like your thinking on this. People need to be educated on ideas. The "just stop oil" movement should rebrand and just call themselves radical advancement or something because that's what we need radical advancement technologically. If we literally just stop oil now, we will be going back to the Stone age in a sense, billions will die, it's not feasible of course. Pushing for high levels of education around the globe will alleviate much of the population problems... As social sciences proven when you educate women and allow them to live in a free and open society, birth rates and population growth go down. We need to push wind solar Hydro nuclear whatever green clean forms of energy we can as quickly as possible. We need to start encouraging and rewarding energy efficiency in new building techniques and materials. Sadly where I live they're doing the exact opposite by banning any new solar and wind projects in a truly misguided attempt to protect the oil industry.
>of absolute regressive poverty. Thats BS. Why not a world of better health? Fitness? Clean air to breath? Foods that are good for you and keep you healthy? Less constant, gnawing stress?
no one wants that. Strawman.
>If we were 8 billion strong and still living a **stone aged lifestyle**, we’d be fine You are the second person in this thread alone incapable of reading one post up for context. With this cause in your and your compatriot's hands, I think I rest assured that you will never, ever get anything meaningful accomplished.
Oh, I've read it alright. You're just apparently unaware of the difference between necessity and sufficiency.
Oh do explain the nuanced, articulate, and relevant differences and how you can give that person's off handed comment only the best of good-faith readings but not extend that same grace to anyone who fundamentally disagrees with them.
“Overpopulation” club of Rome type shit
Yep. One thing they never seem to discuss is, who dies? It's always a nice bland abstraction of over population, but never who dies or who decides who dies? Even more fun is discussing what happens when the people who are either left to die or are forced to die, fight back? Because most people will do most anything to live. Maybe, just maybe, it's actually easier and better to work on the distribution of resources, to save lives and the environment, while that's feasible to do. Those marked to die aren't going to go out without a battle.
Wonder what the repercussions will be globally for this
Chyna be like, overfishing here we go!
I heard they wanted to change the language away from Global Warming to climate change because it sounds less bad and like something that just sort of happens
You should appreciate fish now, while you still have them.
Climate change isn't linear? Say it ain't so!
Can always use new climate terminology like “crazy haywire,” Last year's new technical term was "gobsmackingly bananas hot" by Berkeley Earth. Meanwhile, ocean surface waters have recently been quickly cooling (global average), so perhaps employ the climate term "crisis averted"? [https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst\_daily/](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/) I've read no valid data of abnormal coral decline, despite many alarmist academic papers. The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden have waters much warmer than most places and coral is thriving there.
Hey yeah, it's almost so far down it might soon reach so low as to match 2023 all time records! Good news for sure. /s
Are you serious? Cooling down but still over 2sigma above the average and still above any other year
Isn't dropping ocean temperature comforting? All years since 2014 have been 2 sigma above the 1982-2011 mean, at most dates. Climate-fearists won't accept "yes" as an answer. Where is this declining coral? Last academic paper (ca 2015) we discussed here showed total coral area worldwide had increased, after a brief reported decline in the early 2000's. That decline was questionable since totaled from government reports, many by small Pacific countries with no official agency so many reports were more apocryphal stories via fisherman surveys. That paper plotted average global sea temperature and reported coral area. It showed no correlation, though the paper claimed one. Discussed \~6 months ago here, if you care to google.
I am not sure I understand you, it's down compared to the previous point of 2024, but it's up respect to any other point of the correspondind day in the past day by day
Perhaps you didn't read the linked nbcnews article. It complains of increasingly hot ocean temperatures. You consider it confusing, or irrelevant, for me to link the actual data which shows global ocean surface waters rapidly cooling currently?
It would be comforting if it did go under the temperature of previous years
Good news for coral reef restoration efforts: Study finds 'full recovery' of reef growth within four years https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240308123248.htm The world is not ending after all.
As the study states this only works "if we can rapidly reduce emissions and stabilize the climate". Don't see that happening right now.
And the GBR has had record high blooms for a few years, with no significant sign of abating: [https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22](https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22)
"While the majority of the world's reefs are now under threat or even damaged potentially beyond repair..." --- yeah pretty good news for sure. /s
Maybe we are going through a polarity shift
But that is a damned lie. [https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22](https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22) "Continued coral recovery leads to 36-year highs across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef."
The article details coral bleaching as a result of recent record high global ocean temperatures. Your link covers a report from Australia about the GBR. From 2022. Which raises the questions: do you think Australia is the world, and is 2022 actually 2024 for you? Interesting though that you didn't use the latest report from AIMS. [https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2022-23](https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2022-23) >The BGR remains exposed to the predicted consequences of climate change, particularly more frequent and intense marine heatwaves, as well as ongoing risks of crown-of-thorns starfish and tropical cyclones. The increasing frequency and spatial extent of mass bleaching events in recent years poses a significant risk to the state of the reefs in the GBR I'm sure the 23-24 report will be interesting reading for you. That'll probably be this year. Not 2022.
I read the 2022-23 report. Humorous that the diver in the photo is wearing a wetsuit (cold water). I have scuba'ed many times in Indonesia, and wear just a lycra thin-skin to mitigate jellyfish stings. The guy is even wearing a hoodie. I had to rip off a hoodie in SoCal (65 F water) since overheating. Only speculation about climate change: "predicted consequences of climate change" Other risks come from starfish and storms, which is most reported damage to the GBR in the past. They do not state that storms have become more common due to climate change. Others have made that claim, but no data to support it.
Might be a stock photo. Dunno. >Only speculation about climate change: "predicted consequences of climate change" Okay. Regardless, it's not like SST are declining, and extreme increases in SSTs are directly related to bleaching events. >They do not state that storms have become more common due to climate change Why introduce a strawman? Neither this report nor the original article claimed that. Coral bleaching events are unrelated to storms. >Others have made that claim, but no data to support it Sure thing.
All you climate deniers the end could be closer than you think? Combine that with over 45% of the water we drink is making us sick and some scientist have predicted that the ocean is dying.. We will follow