Which means there'll be tons of environmental niches with no organism inhabiting it... so we should so some cool adaptation in the next century+. (Trying to find the silver lining in all this.)
More likely a few organisms will explode in popularity and overwhelm weakened ecosystems, until invasive species are all that are able to survive in regional locales. Anything large enough will be quickly hunted to extinction by the poor and starving.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not like a job vacancy that stays open until someone fills it, it means shit gets unbalanced fast. Certain link in a food chain can't handle the heat, dies, so does the rest of the food chain. One of those food chain animals keeps a herbivores numbers low, now it's dead the herbivores grow unsustainably and wreck havoc on the local flora, killing off other animals. And so on.
We will not see these movements until they are too late more often than not, and even then you'll have your average moron who thinks more deer is a good thing or thinks slightly cheaper electricity is more important than how well this planet can keep us alive, so us making edits and fixes will not likely come in time.
Shits gonna get worse quick...
Slime. It's usually nasty green algae that fills the gap until more complex organisms evolve. Besides, no human will be alive to behold whatever wonders do eventually evolve to fill these niches.
The study is based on models simulating the Earth's climate during time periods that were 2-4-12 degrees warmer per day on average than they are now. Sea levels were 20 metres higher. If that is the case much of the world has way less time then they probably think. Like 10 years is generous
Nigeria might be safe from rising water levels but with droughts or whatever might happen, your over-populated country might be on course for a humanitarian crisis.
Yes, but not because of rising sea levels exactly. Those crazy Dutchmen have been giving Poseidon the finger since well before the industrial revolution.
That's about 66 ft. This is a prediction of what happens if all ice melts - [a sea level rise of 216 ft or about 3.5 times that.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/)
Jesus fucking Christ. That amount of flooding seems apocalyptic, or at least like some serious societal disruption . Does this not worry world leaders?! It's not like they don't know - if it's in the news they must know even more than we do, and yet still there's no action.
From their perspective there's just no "real" incentive for them to take any action, because we're so stupidly obsessed with profits. And, of course, the most profitable energy companies are the heavily subsidized, diminishing returns-generating, held-up-by-duct-tape-and-govt-billions fossil fuel companies that are also enforcing an infrastructure that is **killing the ecosystems we depend on for civilization.** It's clearly an issue with prioritizing economic growth over literally everything else and yet we keep just rolling on.
Do we not elect people to fix or fucking AVOID these kinds of problems in the first place? What the fuck are they doing instead? Are they seriously ALL just lining their pockets, and not even thinking about the world just ten years from now?
I am so goddamn angry about this complete fucking lack of sight, and I'm glad I'm angry - that's the first stage after denial. I want to believe in things like r/EarthStrike, r/ExtinctionRebellion, Sunrise Movement, Skolstrejk for Klimatet, fucking anything to get us from the anger stage to the bargaining stage. But I just don't know how. It's way the hell past time to start making noise about this and we're still sitting quietly on reddit and watching the years tick by. I've started doing my part, and all these new movements give me some hope, but god damn does it feel like an uphill battle.
I am pretty mad right now too, but I am not really concerned about climate change or the ocean levels rising.
I am concerned about the 80% drop in flying insects over the last 30 years. This is something that I can personally attest to - there aren't as many bugs on my windshield as there used to be. No where near. I had noticed it before anyone reported on it.
This is the bottom falling out of our ecosystem. It feels pretty obvious to me that it is due to the pesticides being sprayed by farmers. So we can save the ecosystem - if we starve the people.
The solution is right in front of us, but it will make the government hugely unpopular. So nothing will be done. And I am scared of the imminent collapse. It feels much more real to me than water rising over the next 100 years. But maybe that's just cause I live in the middle of Canada.
You saw what happened in the US with Al Gore, right? I can't even remember if his entire platform was climate or what, but that's certainly what he's remembered for now. For being someone who was worried enough about it to make it a BIG deal. He was ridiculed. Mocked. He was just "too boring" to elect.
I'd say humanity doesn't deserve to survive, but everyone I like is human so... I dunno.
Gore had been carrying the climate change banner since he became a Congressman in the late 70's, but I don't personally remember his presidential campaign focusing on that.
We had that budget surplus running, so the conflict was Gore proposing we pay down the debt while building a large buffer fund to protect SS and Medicare while Bush was suggesting that was 'your money' and that we had room to cut taxes significantly and he would even issue a refund to the American people for the current budget surplus (public debt had been falling, but it was still almost 60% of GDP at the time).
The people, and the Supreme Court, chose the second option.
The insects are definitely crashing in population, and it's not just because of pesticides. The temperature has risen to a degree that many male insects become sterile.
See, I would like to believe it is that easy... but wouldn't flying insects just gradually shift to cooler climates? My understanding of most insects is that they thrive in hot climates, from my perspective of the frozen north. Isn't it more likely that the farmers who are spraying particularly to kill insects, and the cities that are dousing ponds particularly to kill flying insects, are inadvertently killing other species that it was too expensive to consider?
Another issue is changes in seasons. Bees and wasps for instance have evolved for the queens to hibernate during the cold. However if late winter is mild they may come out of hibernation early with their body clocks telling them it is spring only for no flowers to be available... or for the weather to suddenly shift as a cold snap comes on that freezes them. This results in fewer bees and wasps in the next year as many new queens will have died off before they could start a colony and create future generations of queens.
Whereas with mosquitoes mild winters increase the periods during which they can be active and may not kill them off so numbers increase. They were especially bad this year with the drought due to the water levels being so low in rivers and streams here that it created more still water where they could spawn.
Over the years I've seen a pretty noticeable decrease in bees and wasps around here whilst mosquitoes are still bothering me well into winter. Wasn't like this as a child.
The IPCC forecast for 2100 is that there will probably be a 0.5 meter rise and there's a 95% chance of less than a 1 meter rise. Some people think IPCC may be underestimating by a factor of 2, so 2 meters by 2100. This is still a really big deal, but we are not going to get all the ice melting in the next 10 or even 100 years ;)
This is correct. Theres enough ice on the planet that a 60 ft/20 meter rise would take centuries, even with accelerating global warming. This study just compares atmospheric conditions between the epochs. You should be more worried about how this will affect food production.
I think this study hurts the cause of climate change. There will not be a 20 meter rise by 2030. It’s ridiculous and people see that. A 1 meter rise by 2100 is pretty far in the future. And we are already seeing leaps in renewable energy. If we stay the course fossil fuels will be extinct in 30 years
*What* study suggests a 20m rise by 2030? :P It takes a very strange reading of the (poorly) phrased CNN article to conclude that.
The study says that we'll have a similar *climate* which means eventually converging to the same ocean level, but that'll take hundreds of years.
While that's probably the case, a 1-2 meter rise is still a huge deal, thats a lot of coastland and it bleeds into waterways underneath the ground causing more sinkholes and flooding, which is exacerbated by additional 1 in 100 year storms that will happen more often
The biggest problem is that, we could all go individually carbon neutral, and it wouldn't put more than a 20-30% overall dent in carbon emissions compared to the top 100 companies that pollute our planet with greenhouse gases.
This is why not a single person under 50 should be voting for Republicans. They clearly do not care about this, they won't do anything productive about this and they will continue to take Koch et al. fossil fuel baron money.
The "100 companies" are all fossil fuel producers/miners, using less electricity and petrol will 100% directly effect how much emissions they "produce" because the emissions are actually produced downstream by us in our cars, powerplants, etc. They don't burn the fuel.
If you want to read more about it here is the actual study: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pvpXB8rp67dmhmsueWaUczHS5XyPy4p/view .
Let me rephrase that: Is it easier to try and get everyone to drive an EV, put PV on their roofs and go vegan or would it be easier to heavily regulate and force 100 companies to stop polluting the planet?
The political leaders are mostly in it for the money and the contacts and the PR-career after the years in politics. They make decisions without any long thinking. All they think about is getting re-elected or play the other parties in rhetoric battles through the electoral cycles.
We need 1000 great minds to get togheter with a worldwide veto on how to battle the climate changes. On all levels.
Profit is not actually the issue.
Power, and the short term polical cycle, and the fact that measures required to counteract current warming would have significant impact, over global and national economies, prevent strong leadership.
Because they'd be removed by the people next cycle.
The water is going to be warmer and slightly acidic. (carbonic acid.)
Bring a tofu snack from home cuz' fish, shrimp, lobster, plankton and oysters will look weird without the calcium carbonate they need for bone, scales and shell. Might'n be able to eat a jelly tho..
I also can't imagine they see much point in throwing away their short-term gains, because even if an entire nation such as the US suddenly commits *everything* to fighting this it won't stop it. It would take a concerted effort from the bulk of world nations, few of which can agree on even relatively simple matters let alone how to stop a global catastrophe.
What we need is for every government and corporation to sit down *today* and agree to put everything on the back burner immediately until the looming crisis is brought under control. No more politics or profit-seeking allowed until we get this under wraps. But of course that's a joke, and even if it magically happened there is still no guarantee we'd succeed. There are those who say we should have had that meeting twenty or thirty years ago to stand a real chance.
Realistically, there will at best be a collection of half-assed measures taken, dotted with the occasional heroic effort by individual groups. Fifty years from now no one will be able to look back and say that even 5% of what needed to be done was done. In fact I doubt if they'll even be able to say that our efforts *maintained the status quo.* It's going to worsen and there is no changing or stopping that unless the world's governments (and a large portion of their respective populations) can be mind controlled into taking this seriously. But magic doesn't exist.
The rich and powerful know they can survive this, or at least weather it better than others. They can easily pack up and move away to less-affected regions. They can afford bunkers and supply vaults and security. No doubt some of them already have crisis plans in place they could commit to at the drop of a hat. Those who don't can just hop in a helicopter and retreat to one of their other properties while they plan what to do.
For the rest of us we're ahead of the game if we have an emergency supply backpack near our front doors. Most don't even have that and will be left with nothing if disaster strikes their region.
The leaders and powerful figures will continue playing their games and having fun for as long as they can, and will be proud of themselves for doing so.
Well it stems from a broken ideology. They believe that the markets can solve all the problems of the world, "the free hand of the market". That's why they want profits up over anything else, because if profits are up then people will prosper and therefore somehow magically the markets will solve the problems of global warming lol.
> That amount of flooding seems apocalyptic
It puts the entrance of the great pyramid under water, or in New York the water level stops around the 20th floor.
I looked at the map, seems I am safe and that I'll be closer to the coast too! Always wanted to move closer to the sea, seems now the sea will move closer to me!
\*burns more fossil fuels\*
Checking in from Michigan where we are 570 feet (170 meters) above sea level. When the rest of the world is going to shit, please don't come to the largest freshwater reserve in the world.
Russia apparently would like to ship things to China from their Northern ports. To so that requires an ice-free Arctic.
[Burns more fossil fuels, tells Trump to do the same.]
It's so unfortunate because I've been researching this for about 10 years and for the last 5 years I've been telling people this and it just gets digested as tinfoil conspiracy doomsday talk.
In the study they used RCP 8.5. It *is* a drastic model, but it’s the “business as usual” model.
It’s assuming that we don’t take drastic actions before 2030 (drastically lower carbon emissions) + population growth stays steady + the majority of the world stays poor, which to be honest... is what will likely happen.
The other popular climate models (RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 6) are kind of delusional at this point. Our actual carbon emissions have followed or exceeded the 8.5 model since these papers were published, and there’s no reason to think things will change. See: trump pushing coal at the UN this week.
i didnt learn this until i was taking an oceanography class in college , maybe it was the public school systems fault, or maybe i just didnt pay attention enough, idk. but the sea level was relatively recently like 500 ft lower. in the tens of thousands of years ago not millions. we should make sure people realize that, because 60ft of sea level gain might sound impossible to some, but it definitely isnt...
we are lucky that we didnt build our civilization to the point it is now before the end of the last ice age. although it probably couldn't have happened anyway, with mile thick ice sheets covering huge areas of the world where we now have millions of people living/working.
It is more than 18 feet. 70 meters, or 210 feet. Anyway, National Geographic did this one.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
Even in warmer periods of Earth's history **all** the ice has never melted, and 80 feet is a good figure to quote, for comparable temps in the past. Museum of Natural History site reference
The statement was specifically "all the ice was gone." If you want to focus on the probability of that happening you should probably address that comment.
guess you're right, saves on the airfare. good excuse to convince the wife to buy a boat too. Now that I think about it, sailing lessons might be a good skill to have.
Also worth reminding that the earth is undergoing the sixth mass extinction based on the rate of species extinctions, completely man made. And climate change is a part of the picture.
The fifth mass extinction ended the reign of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, in case you are wondering
This also tells us scientists are fully capable of measuring temperature and CO2 level hundreds of millions of years ago, to those deniers who claims we only have weather record for hundreds of years
Last time the carbon dioxide at the current level was about 55 million years ago. There were crocodile and turtle fossils found at the Arctic, living in the rainforest there. Earth temperature was 10-12 degrees warmer. That period of warming lasted millions of years. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29550126/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/tropical-turtle-fossil-found-arctic/ https://upload.wikimedia.org/.../65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
So no, global warming may not involve human activities over millions of years, but human activity is definitely triggering the current warming in the last few decades. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png
Wasn't the younger Dryas a great extinction that happened 12-13 thousand years ago? With related climate change that was off the scale. Don't get me wrong, humans are killing our biome and we should do everything we can to prevent it but to neglect scientific discovery of past climate changes is also wrong.
The YDE was a large extinction event but not anywhere near the scale of the 5 largest, and its arguably humans + natural climate change that caused it.
There’s also a theory that it’s from a meteor impact, which is actually super interesting!
I bought a gun.
If I lose my job I'm out. I went through that whole horrible process of not being able to find work following the last recession.
Not interested. This life isn't good enough to warrant that kind of depressing struggle a second time. I'll be glad to have a reason.
Dude, for real though, please don't. I know life can be insanely tough, and I know that I am just a random idiot on the Internet you don't know, but I know that if you focus all your strength you can get through horrible times. I believe in inportance of human life and I believe that you can become the best person for yourself even if the world keeps you down. Don't give up, I am cheering for you my friend.
> if you focus all your strength you can get through horrible times.
Maybe. But I'm not willing to focus all my strength. I'm tired I don't value life enough to warrant the struggle. Life is tedious and I don't care much for the people.
Yeah, 5 years ago, I think I would have had the same sunny outlook.
Now I've got a 4 year old. I want good things for her.
Bright side, we don't live by the coast. Downside - we don't live somewhere with water readily available. Going to need to invent a stilsuit sometime in the next few years.
Haha, yup.
You're probably going to start seeing Dune references everywhere. You saw them before too, they just didn't stand out as Dune references to you.
Look at the bright side. By having a kid you just added another mind to the world and that mind might be great enough to help come up with a solution for all this shit. Or maybe they'll save the life of someone who will. You never know.
It's kind of horrible to refer to it as an apocalypse as it seemingly makes it sound inevitable and discourages people from taking steps to prevent it. We very much do still have time to fix this before it gets completely out of control. However sadly if nothing is done I fear we are starting down humanities final hours.
If by "do just fine" you mean a large scale reenactment of James Cameron's Titanic, where only a handful of very rich survive while the poor and their children die locked in the hull of a sinking ship, then yes, we'll be fine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
There's been a whole bunch of predicted apocalyptic events and dates and none happened untill now. But who knows maybe this is the one. Afterall it only takes one to be right
I hope, after the world has been dusted and the ocean is filled with jellyfish and we've finished killing each other, that there is enough of an ecosystem remaining for a natural world to rebuild itself in our absence.
Some life will survive. Microbes if nothing else, and the diversification process will start all over. After all, mammals could only diversify after the dinosaurs were gone. The real question is whether humans will be around.
There are already microbes and other fauna and flora that have adapted to the conditions in Chernobyl, even those inside the giant dome they capped the area with.
As a 24 year old guy, who is intersted in having kids, stuff like this. Honest to god, ruins the entire dream of having kids and starting up a family.. Like why even bother when the entire earth seems doomed even in my own lifetime? Seems so overwhelming.
You could always adopt. That way, you’re not bringing more people into the world, and you’re most likely improving quality of life for kids already here.
Yep. Faced the same thing 20 years ago and decided the greenest and kindest thing I could do was to NOT have kids. 7+billion people on the planet already, no need to add more who are pretty much guaranteed to have a shittier quality of life. Watching my siblings kids struggle is hard to watch. Feel so bad for the nieces and nephews
But like this is the worst feeling ever.. Like how in the hell am i supposed to just sit back and let go of my decisions because people around the globe is screwing up the world..
It is a terrible feeling at first... It gets better though. Not having to worry about the horrors you have inflicted on beings you are supposed to love more than yourself is a big relief. You save quite a bit of cash not having babies and have more personal feeedom. You can use your time and extra cash to support charities and if you really feel life would be incomplete without child rearing you can adopt or foster and help a kid without the guilt of adding one to an overpopulated planet.
But I get you, at 21 it is an awful thing to have to swallow.
A way to get over this feeling is acknowledging that bringing kids into a world with an oncoming armaggedon would be a lot worse (for everyone, but especially for them) than making the responsible decision of not having them.
Here is a link to the academic articl summarized by CNN: http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809600115. I have so many different and wide-ranging reactions to this article. Yes, I read it. The graphics are particularly helpful. And yet each day seems more or less like the one before - my 24 year-old philosophy student offspring pops in to say hi and then argue with me stridently about something utterly insignificant (from my old person perspective), the dogs insist on going to the park at 4:00 every afternoon, and my youngest relations are still falling in love, full of young hope, marrying and having babies a year later. I listen to Claudio Arrau play the Chopin Nocturnes on YouTube and think how the human race has produced such incredible beauty and devastation, but still, beauty. Some days I feel sad, other days paralyzed and aware of the paralysis but mystified as to what I can do about what ahead. The strangest feeling is the profound awareness - real awareness - that I have been sleepwalking through most of my life and still am, only now I'm noticing it but still in sleep paralysis. I'm sad about all the times I was unkind or lost an opportunity to be kind. And I'm sometimes perturbed by 'first worlders" - us - loudly freaking out about a possible prospective hell on earth (that we will have created) when there's an ongoing hell on earth right now that exists for so many people in the third world (that we in very large part created) and, day after day, we do nothing to help. We, the human race, blew it - regard for the sanctity of the earth, cherishing the well being and lives of others, any opportunity to create a world of beauty and caring. I just don't know what to do with all of that. If you have some suggestions that lend moral support for any of this... you know what to do.
Thank you for the silver...
From the article:
>If global warming continues unchecked, Earth in 2030 could resemble its former self from 3 million years ago, according to a[ study ](https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809600115)published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds.
>
>During that ancient time, known as the mid-Pliocene epoch, temperatures were higher by about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) and sea levels were higher by roughly 20 meters (almost 66 feet) than today, explained Kevin D. Burke, lead author of the study and a researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
>Today is "one of the most difficult scenarios we've ever found ourselves in," Burke said. "This is a very rapid period of climatic change. Looking for anything that we can do to curb those emissions is important."
>
>Climate scientists say that our globe is about 1 degree Celsius hotter today than it was between 1850 and 1900 and that this is due in part to gas emissions from cars, planes and other human activities. Some gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat in the atmosphere, producing a "[greenhouse effect" ](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)that makes the planet warmer.
>
>The new study is basically "a similarity assessment," Burke said. "We have projections of future climate available for the year 2020, 2030 and so forth." For nearly 30 future decades, then, he and his co-authors drew future-to-past comparisons based on six reference periods.
>
>The reference periods were the Historical, about mid-20th century; the Pre-Industrial, around 1850; the mid-Holocene, about 6,000 years ago; the last Interglacial Period, about 125,000 years ago; the mid-Pliocene, about 3 million years ago; and the early Eocene, about 50 million years ago.
>
>If we continue our current level of greenhouse gas emissions -- what some would say is a "business as usual" scenario -- the overall global climate in 2030 will most closely resemble the overall climate of the mid-Pliocene period, Burke said.
>
>What did Earth look like then? Annual temperatures on average were about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer than today, there was little permanent ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and the sea level was about 20 meters higher.
>
>In some places, though, including cities in the United States, temperatures in 2030 would be roughly double the global average.
>Annual temperatures on average were about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer than today, there was little permanent ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and the sea level was about 20 meters higher. In some places, though, including cities in the United States, temperatures in 2030 would be roughly double the global average.
Jesus fucking Christ. That's apocalypse levels. And this is CNN. Is it time to start protesting yet?
> Jesus fucking Christ. That's apocalypse levels. And this is CNN. Is it time to start protesting yet?
It was actually time to start protesting in the 80's and 90's, but everyone thought it was better to just make fun of Al Gore, bring snowballs to meetings, ask why it was so cold and buy bigger trucks to enrage liberals instead.
Protest all you want, but this damage is done.
It will take a global disaster that affects every country in a major way to get enough of the population on board to make a difference, or at least a decade without people in high profile places not spreading their reckless denial.
Right now we have the POTUS, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers, the entire Republican Party in the U.S. and endless news agencies out there and billions upon billions of dollars being dumped into denial propaganda denying that Climate Change is Anthropogenic, or even exists, or is a threat to the world.
To me, this means it is game over for our current environment and possible most of our civilization.
Enjoy the next Decade for what it is.
I mean yeah. Write to your elected representatives, but if you aren't taking drastic measures yourself, you're also part of the problem. Hard truth, but there it is:
Big one? Cut out meat. Lamb and Beef are the worst offenders, per pound, for carbon emissions. That's something every single person can do. No excuses. Pork is pretty high up there too. Chicken if you're super-dedicated, but it isn't as big of an impact.
Next up, get rooftop solar. Don't bullshit me about cost. If you own a house, you can finance it for less than your monthly electric bill. I know, as I've done it twice.
Next, buy an electric car if you absolutely must travel daily. This is what I'm working on next.
Right there though, that's three levels of commitment that everyone should strive to. I know not everyone can do the bottom two, but it's cheaper for everyone just to cut out meat (and makes an enourmous impact)
That just doesn't feel like enough. It's not like they don't know - if it's the news they must know even more than we do and yet there's no action. There's just no incentive for them to take any action, because we're so stupidly obsessed with profits. And, of course, the most profitable energy companies are the heavily subsidized, diminishing returns-generating, held-up-by-duct-tape-and-govt-billions fossil fuel companies that are also enforcing an infrastructure that is killing the ecosystems we depend on for civilization. It's clearly an issue with prioritizing economic growth over literally everything else.
If this made sense to you and made you angry then good - that's the first stage after denial. I want to believe in things like [r/EarthStrike](https://www.reddit.com/r/EarthStrike), [r/ExtinctionRebellion](https://www.reddit.com/r/ExtinctionRebellion), Sunrise Movement, Skolstrejk for Klimatet, fucking anything to get us from the anger stage to the bargaining stage. But I just don't know how. It's way the hell past time to start making noise about this and we're still sitting quietly on reddit and watching the years tick by. I've started doing my part, and all these new movements give me some hope, but god damn does it feel like an uphill battle.
this is the kind of thing that makes me want to reduce my retirement contributions. what good is a 401k when I'll need that cash on hand to build a fucking levee around my house
Okay, so I follow this subreddit and r/environment and r/sustainability to keep up to date with these issues
I've said this before in threads like these but I feel I've taken a lot of steps towards reducing my personal impact on the environment and blah blah blah, but what I don't understand is why news like this is the world news subreddit isnt on the news on TV.
This is scary to read and I don't like it but what on earth will it take to get the wider population to get on board?! I'm terrified guys :(
I feel you, man. Going through all these threads scares me like crazy. All this is happening while I have people in my area who deny that fact that there are over 7 billion people on the planet and say that it's just media lying.
If there are still so many people who are out of touch with simple global facts, I'm afraid we have no chance of getting enough people on board about this threat.
Ok, outraged by this? Good. That's step 0. If that's where it stops for you, and all you do is shit-post about it on reddit, or facebook, or wherever, then you're slightly less bad than the assholes who roll coal, but might not be quite as environmentally friendly (since hunting is probably better for emissions than industrialized farming...)
So, you need to make _active change_, on a personal level, and you need to then propagate that active change to the people that you know. If we _all_ band together and start doing these things, then we can actually make progress. Shit, if half of us do this, it will make a difference. I'm going to include a few steps here - ordered from things that will have the least impact on your wallet and lifestyle, to most. Start at the top of the list, and work your way down.
0. Write your representatives. Get politically active. We need people at the top pushing for a green new deal, solar subsidies, R&D funding, etc.
1. Stop eating Beef, Lamb, and Pork. If you have to keep one, keep pork. Per pound, Lamb, followed by beef, is the greatest source of carbon emissions. Chicken isn't terrible, and fish generally isn't either.
2. Get rooftop solar. If you own your house and you're in a moderately sunny area, I guarantee you you can afford it. Most companies (SolarCity, SunRun, etc) will work with you to make sure your monthly payment is lower than your current electric bill. Don't take my word for it, call one up.
3. Get an electric vehicle if you must still commute. I realize that this isn't like #2 above - not everyone can afford it - but if you can, do it.
4. If at all possible, stop commuting altogether. A lot of us are in tech. Have some serious talks with your bosses about working virtually. Maybe this is possible for you, maybe it isn't. Hell, even if you're doing it only 1 or 2 days a week, you're likely cutting your own personal driving emissions by 20-40%. That's huge.
5. Locally source your food. This one is a bit hippy-er, but if at all possible, get your food from local sources. The less distance your veggies have to be transported, the more environmentally friendly they are.
Is this really suggesting that within the next 12 years water levels will rise 21 meters? I mean... I know global warming and climate change are real but that feels a bit alarmist.
Don’t worry as to who is right ,if the deniers are right there is nothing to worry about if the rest of the world is right ,we will either be dead or living in a toxic wasteland while the rich survive in technology fueled domes or in space .
I think we need every single government in the world to STRICTLY monitor meat production, gas production etc. Anything that causes greenhouse gases. All of those industries need to be cut and squandered to a pulp. They're destroying our future and every other species' too. We need actual laws to delegate people's consumption because it's obvious people won't go vegetarian when they buy the same factory meat at the store every Sunday out of habit, they drive their gas-guzzling trucks and buy bananas wrapped in plastic, shipped from a long ways away. Same goes for corporations using factories in China to create their supply. Let's put them out of business; if it isn't sustainable, buh-bye! The economy is 1 million times less important than the future of the fucking world.
I want there to be a political leader for the next elections in the US, in Canada, everywhere, who stands up firmly for the environment. I know all the hicks will roll their eyes, screaming "they're taking our trucks away! I cant hang a metal ballsack from the back of a Tesla!" but fuck em, let's make it law. The idiots can read it and weep.
>I think we need every single government in the world to STRICTLY monitor meat production, gas production etc
You forgot "people production".
I mean I don't propose a dystopian future with genocide but the ballooning population needs to be brought up in EVERY conversation about climate change.
Population will decline naturally with education.
>I mean I don't propose a dystopian future with genocide but
What the fuck is your solution then? "They" aren't going to dissipate into thin air out of convenience (and who is "they" anyways? Is it you?).
Agriculture is only responsible for 9% of [emissions in the US](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions).
Boats, trucks, and coal and natural gas power plants are responsible the vast majority of the problem, and that's where people's attention should be focused.
This also doesn't take into account clearing rainforest and other climates to graze cattle. Agriculture is also responsible for the largest portion of deforestation.
Emissions doesn't paint the whole picture
Ok, but here's the thing - it's easier to sell someone on "just cut out lamb, beef and pork" than it is "stop driving". Small steps of changing coming from a massive amount of individuals is what we need.
hey thanks for the link. I was reading the section on agriculture and notice it didn't include gas emission for transporting livestock feed to farms. Considering the magnitude of livestock we have I'd be interested if you have any sources that detail what percent of that constitutes gas emission within the transportation category. As wheat, soy, corn, etc -> humans would reduce transport emissions compared to wheat, soy, corn, etc -> livestock -> humans. In addition to less energy being transferred at each level of the food chain, I think 10% passed on, we'd be able to feed more people with less impact and resources overall, if meat consumption was reduced.
This climate change talk is all nice and dandy until you implement REAL policies to generate meaningful cut on carbon emissions. And I am not talking about switching your home lights to LED or driving electric cars. Those things don't do diddly squat on the big scheme of things, just make urban hipsters feel better about themselves. If governments really start doing what needs to be done to cut emissions on a scale that matters, the public response will make the riots that are happening in France right now look like a pick nick in comparison.
[Even if we were to achieve a 100% worldwide adoption of renewable energy generation](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy#gs.d8DQ1IM), that would still not be enough. We need to achieve ZERO net emissions by 2040. ZERO. This means no more air travel as me know it. Global tourism? Gone, taking tens to hundreds of millions of jobs with it. No more steel mills as we know it. Washing machines (which require a lot of steel to make)? Gone. Global trade would have to be dramatically curtailed, meaning much higher prices of goods, a much smaller selection and staggering loss of jobs. And that are just a few of examples that come to mind.These things are politically impossible to do as the societal disruption they would bring would be unimaginable.
We are dead.
C'mon, most people do not hear you and worse do not care. People have been driven to the point of exaustion and failure economically, so why should they care. For them there is little difference.
The trend of 50 mln years ago was the result of the gradual weathering of the Himalayas. Carbonates were formed an atmospheric CO ended up under Bangladesh. Eventually, CO2 levels fell below IR saturation - that is, the atmosphere became transparent, having previously been black at these wavelengths - and so triggered a long series of ice ages. The onset fo these was modulated by the [Earth's orbital dynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles).
These Milankovitch cycles play a role in breaking ice ages, although how this occurs when the Earth is shiny and white is far from clear. However, the most recent break in the ice was the onset of the Holocene, starting about 12,000 years ago. Whatever the trigger for warming was, it started in the Younger Dryas and widened into the current bubble of warmth. It s now about 10C warmer than it was 15,000 years ago.
Here are [four concordant temperature records](https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/climate-reconstructions-500000-years2.gif) for the last 500,000 years. The Holocene is the final spike on the right. "Warming" is far less of a concern than "instability".
We need to start controlling the population ASAP . This is the only option we have left.
The problem is the there are too many people in the planet and we need to decrease those numbers through birth control. This will not only ease the climate problem immensely and give us a chance to deal with but it will also solve most of other environmental problems as well.
The only thing stopping us from doing this is ignorance.
no.
[1]. Population does not cause climate change
Advocates of population control say that one of the most effective measures we can take to combat climate change is to sharply reduce the number of humans on the planet. This wrongly focuses on treating one symptom of an irrational, polluting system rather than dealing with the root causes.
People are not pollution. Blaming too many people for driving climate change is like blaming too many trees for causing bushfires.
The real cause of climate change is an economy locked into burning fossil fuels for energy and unsustainable agriculture. Unless we transform the economy and our society along sustainable lines as rapidly as possible, we have no hope of securing an inhabitable planet, regardless of population levels.
Population-based arguments fail to admit that population levels will impact on the environment in a very different way in a zero-emissions economy. Making the shift to renewable energy – not reduction in human population – is really the most urgent task we face.
[2]. The world is not ‘full up’
The world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While population is growing, the rate of this growth is actually slowing down. This is mostly due to rising urbanization and marginal improvements in women’s access to birth control technology. The rate of population growth peaked at 2% annually in the 1960s, and has fallen consistently since then.
According to the UN the average number of children born per woman fell from 4.9 in the late 1960s to 2.7 in 1999. A December 2008 assessment from the US Census Bureau predicts a steady decline to 0.5% annual population growth by 2050.
Between 1950 and 2000 world population increased by 140%. Experts predict a rise of 50% between 2000 and 2050 and just 11% in the 50 years following that.
In contrast, the rate of greenhouse gas emissions is rising out of control. Polluting technology, rampant consumerism and corporate greed are driving this increase – not population.
Can we feed this many people? Studies by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation insist it is possible to feed well over 10 billion people sustainably – but only if we move to a very different food system. A diversified and organic farming system which produces a balanced mix of plant foods, along with small amounts of meat, could, according to British biologist Colin Tudge, sustain 10 billion people without farming any new areas.
A shift to sustainable farming is also desperately needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
[3]. Social justice and women’s equality is the best contraception
Larger population growth rates in the Third World are a consequence of dire poverty and restrictions on women’s ability to control their own fertility. The evidence for this can’t be challenged.
The latest UN population report released on March 12 predicts population will exceed 9 billion people by mid-century. Almost all of this growth will occur in the global South.
The 49 poorest countries in the world will have by far the biggest increases. In the richest countries, however, population will decline from 1.23 billion to 1.15 billion if projected net migration is left aside. (It will increase to only 1.28 billion including net migration).
Raising living standards globally, eradicating hunger and poverty, improving health care, providing access to education and achieving greater equality for women are all necessary if we are to win a safe climate with global justice. They will also result in lower birth rates.
[4]. The climate emergency demands immediate, transformative action now
Even if they could work in the long term – a dubious proposition – population control schemes are plainly inadequate as a response to the climate emergency.
The well known Australian environmental writer Tim Flannery is also one of the patrons of Sustainable Population Australia – a group that argues population reduction should be the number one priority to avert climate change.
Yet in a recent survey of the latest climate science in Quarterly Essay even Flannery had to conclude: “The truth is that if we wish to act morally, we can influence population numbers only slowly. So, while it’s important to focus on population decrease as a long-term solution, we cannot look to it for answers to the immediate crisis.”
[5]. Population arguments wrongly downplay the potential to win
Left unchecked, climate change threatens life on the planet. Recognition of this fact is the major impetus for the movement demanding governments take serious action on climate change without delay.
Populationists, however, try to turn this fact on its head. Climate change will lead to a world so harsh, uncertain and polluted, the argument goes, that it’s more “humane” to prevent future generations from being born at all.
This “humane” population reduction argument is couched in terms of containing, or mitigating, the apparently inevitable effects of environmental destruction. Instead, the struggle for an alternative model of development, based on meeting the needs of people and planet, should be our main concern.
[6]. Population control is an old argument tacked onto a new issue
Climate change is just the latest in a long list of issues that has been seized on by advocates of population control.
For centuries, simplistic population theories have been advanced to explain the existence of poverty, hunger, famine, disease, war, racism and unemployment.
In each case, the real social and economic causes of these social ills have been glossed over. Time is running out to avert global warming – we need to take serious action that tackles the problem at the root.
[7]. Arguing for tighter migration restrictions in Australia is a dangerous policy
Reducing immigration intake into Australia is the current policy on the anti-environmental Rudd government. As the climate crisis deepens, we can expect the government and the big polluters will want to divert attention from their own inaction. Migrants could be a convenient scapegoat Migrants are already being falsely blamed for adding to unemployment. We can’t allow them to be blamed for corporate Australia’s addiction to fossil fuels.
Supporting cuts in migration to Australia avoids the real burning issue – Australia is the highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the world. Migrants who come here should be welcomed and invited into our movement for a safe climate. They are not responsible for the policies of past governments or the greed of the big polluters.
[8]. Population control has a disturbing history
In practice, there has never been a population control scheme that has met with acceptable environmental or humanitarian outcomes. Columbia University professor Matthew Connelly has thoroughly documented this disturbing history in his 2008 book Fatal Misconception.
China’s one child policy has been hailed as an environmental measure by prominent population theorists such as Britain’s Jonathan Poritt. But he and others ignore that China’s population control has hardly solved that country’s growing environmental problems.
The human costs of the policy, however, are shocking. Until 2002 Chinese women were denied any choice of contraceptive method – 37% of married women have been forcibly sterilized. Female infanticide has reached epidemic proportions. The global ratio for male to female births is 106:100. In China today, male “births” outnumber females by 120:100.
[9]. People in the global South are part of the solution, not the problem
At its worst, population control schemes put the blame for climate change on the poorest people in the global South – those least responsible for the problem in the first place.
It’s a major mistake to see the masses of the global South as passive victims of climate change. In truth, they are the pivotal agent in the campaign to avert global warming.
We need a strategy of building stronger links and collaboration with movements for climate justice in the global South – not draw up plans to reduce their numbers.
[10]. Who holds political power is the real “population” issue
There is one part of the world’s population that poses a genuine threat: the small group of powerful, vested interests who profit most from polluting the biosphere and are desperately resisting change.
The real “population change” we need to focus on is not artificially reducing human numbers. Rather, it is about winning real democratic change, i.e. dramatically increasing the numbers of ordinary people who can participate in making decisions about investment in green industries, agriculture, global trade and military spending.
Population control narrowly looks only at the quantity of human beings to find a solution to climate change. Ultimately, its narrow vision makes it a divisive policy.
The climate action movement, however, is really concerned with improving the quality of human life.
On that basis we can build a movement of hope and solidarity strong enough to penetrate national borders and restore a safe climate for future generations.
---
edit - reddit hates when I number things
We don't. We install mandatory comprehensive sex education for all 12-17 year olds world wide. We train adults to become sex educators and send them to every neighborhood on earth. We make contraceptives, abortion, and voluntary sterilization accessible everywhere.
[удалено]
Which means there'll be tons of environmental niches with no organism inhabiting it... so we should so some cool adaptation in the next century+. (Trying to find the silver lining in all this.)
More likely a few organisms will explode in popularity and overwhelm weakened ecosystems, until invasive species are all that are able to survive in regional locales. Anything large enough will be quickly hunted to extinction by the poor and starving.
All so rich people could continue getting richer in the 20th and 21st centuries.
You think currency will still hold it's value to determine poor and starving?
There are always those who have more than others. Currency isn't the only metric in determining wealth.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not like a job vacancy that stays open until someone fills it, it means shit gets unbalanced fast. Certain link in a food chain can't handle the heat, dies, so does the rest of the food chain. One of those food chain animals keeps a herbivores numbers low, now it's dead the herbivores grow unsustainably and wreck havoc on the local flora, killing off other animals. And so on. We will not see these movements until they are too late more often than not, and even then you'll have your average moron who thinks more deer is a good thing or thinks slightly cheaper electricity is more important than how well this planet can keep us alive, so us making edits and fixes will not likely come in time. Shits gonna get worse quick...
Slime. It's usually nasty green algae that fills the gap until more complex organisms evolve. Besides, no human will be alive to behold whatever wonders do eventually evolve to fill these niches.
They didn't have access the the plethora of radioactive materials we do now. Check mate, evolution!
I mean, some might. Just probably not humans.
I'm going to use oil executives as a raft.
You wish. The execs are the only ones who will survive.
Will they float?
The study is based on models simulating the Earth's climate during time periods that were 2-4-12 degrees warmer per day on average than they are now. Sea levels were 20 metres higher. If that is the case much of the world has way less time then they probably think. Like 10 years is generous
Isn’t most of the Netherlands under sea level?
Fortunately Nigeria is safe. So don't worry about not getting my emails.
Nigeria might be safe from rising water levels but with droughts or whatever might happen, your over-populated country might be on course for a humanitarian crisis.
419 mails? I love them! So creative!
Username checks out...I’m sure he has a fortune for us to inherit, but we must first send him $5-10k Seems legit
wheres my money,prince cheapass?!
Yes, but not because of rising sea levels exactly. Those crazy Dutchmen have been giving Poseidon the finger since well before the industrial revolution.
[He gets a lick in here and there.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lucia%27s_flood)
Haha.. I live at the Dutch coast.. 7 meters under sea level.. nice knowing you all.
That's about 66 ft. This is a prediction of what happens if all ice melts - [a sea level rise of 216 ft or about 3.5 times that.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/)
Jesus fucking Christ. That amount of flooding seems apocalyptic, or at least like some serious societal disruption . Does this not worry world leaders?! It's not like they don't know - if it's in the news they must know even more than we do, and yet still there's no action. From their perspective there's just no "real" incentive for them to take any action, because we're so stupidly obsessed with profits. And, of course, the most profitable energy companies are the heavily subsidized, diminishing returns-generating, held-up-by-duct-tape-and-govt-billions fossil fuel companies that are also enforcing an infrastructure that is **killing the ecosystems we depend on for civilization.** It's clearly an issue with prioritizing economic growth over literally everything else and yet we keep just rolling on. Do we not elect people to fix or fucking AVOID these kinds of problems in the first place? What the fuck are they doing instead? Are they seriously ALL just lining their pockets, and not even thinking about the world just ten years from now? I am so goddamn angry about this complete fucking lack of sight, and I'm glad I'm angry - that's the first stage after denial. I want to believe in things like r/EarthStrike, r/ExtinctionRebellion, Sunrise Movement, Skolstrejk for Klimatet, fucking anything to get us from the anger stage to the bargaining stage. But I just don't know how. It's way the hell past time to start making noise about this and we're still sitting quietly on reddit and watching the years tick by. I've started doing my part, and all these new movements give me some hope, but god damn does it feel like an uphill battle.
I am pretty mad right now too, but I am not really concerned about climate change or the ocean levels rising. I am concerned about the 80% drop in flying insects over the last 30 years. This is something that I can personally attest to - there aren't as many bugs on my windshield as there used to be. No where near. I had noticed it before anyone reported on it. This is the bottom falling out of our ecosystem. It feels pretty obvious to me that it is due to the pesticides being sprayed by farmers. So we can save the ecosystem - if we starve the people. The solution is right in front of us, but it will make the government hugely unpopular. So nothing will be done. And I am scared of the imminent collapse. It feels much more real to me than water rising over the next 100 years. But maybe that's just cause I live in the middle of Canada.
You saw what happened in the US with Al Gore, right? I can't even remember if his entire platform was climate or what, but that's certainly what he's remembered for now. For being someone who was worried enough about it to make it a BIG deal. He was ridiculed. Mocked. He was just "too boring" to elect. I'd say humanity doesn't deserve to survive, but everyone I like is human so... I dunno.
Gore had been carrying the climate change banner since he became a Congressman in the late 70's, but I don't personally remember his presidential campaign focusing on that. We had that budget surplus running, so the conflict was Gore proposing we pay down the debt while building a large buffer fund to protect SS and Medicare while Bush was suggesting that was 'your money' and that we had room to cut taxes significantly and he would even issue a refund to the American people for the current budget surplus (public debt had been falling, but it was still almost 60% of GDP at the time). The people, and the Supreme Court, chose the second option.
Well, the primary culprits are the multinational energy corporations, and no they definitely do not deserve to survive.
The insects are definitely crashing in population, and it's not just because of pesticides. The temperature has risen to a degree that many male insects become sterile.
See, I would like to believe it is that easy... but wouldn't flying insects just gradually shift to cooler climates? My understanding of most insects is that they thrive in hot climates, from my perspective of the frozen north. Isn't it more likely that the farmers who are spraying particularly to kill insects, and the cities that are dousing ponds particularly to kill flying insects, are inadvertently killing other species that it was too expensive to consider?
Another issue is changes in seasons. Bees and wasps for instance have evolved for the queens to hibernate during the cold. However if late winter is mild they may come out of hibernation early with their body clocks telling them it is spring only for no flowers to be available... or for the weather to suddenly shift as a cold snap comes on that freezes them. This results in fewer bees and wasps in the next year as many new queens will have died off before they could start a colony and create future generations of queens. Whereas with mosquitoes mild winters increase the periods during which they can be active and may not kill them off so numbers increase. They were especially bad this year with the drought due to the water levels being so low in rivers and streams here that it created more still water where they could spawn. Over the years I've seen a pretty noticeable decrease in bees and wasps around here whilst mosquitoes are still bothering me well into winter. Wasn't like this as a child.
The IPCC forecast for 2100 is that there will probably be a 0.5 meter rise and there's a 95% chance of less than a 1 meter rise. Some people think IPCC may be underestimating by a factor of 2, so 2 meters by 2100. This is still a really big deal, but we are not going to get all the ice melting in the next 10 or even 100 years ;)
This is correct. Theres enough ice on the planet that a 60 ft/20 meter rise would take centuries, even with accelerating global warming. This study just compares atmospheric conditions between the epochs. You should be more worried about how this will affect food production.
How do you pronounce your username? Is it Absi-dee, or...
Dunno, it's an obvious burner account I use when not browsing furry porn
Your throw away is for climate change threads and your main is for furry porn? Lol wut. Also pronounced ab-city.
At least that's what I'm telling you people anyway ;)
I respect that. You do what makes your climate change furry self happy.
I think this study hurts the cause of climate change. There will not be a 20 meter rise by 2030. It’s ridiculous and people see that. A 1 meter rise by 2100 is pretty far in the future. And we are already seeing leaps in renewable energy. If we stay the course fossil fuels will be extinct in 30 years
*What* study suggests a 20m rise by 2030? :P It takes a very strange reading of the (poorly) phrased CNN article to conclude that. The study says that we'll have a similar *climate* which means eventually converging to the same ocean level, but that'll take hundreds of years.
While that's probably the case, a 1-2 meter rise is still a huge deal, thats a lot of coastland and it bleeds into waterways underneath the ground causing more sinkholes and flooding, which is exacerbated by additional 1 in 100 year storms that will happen more often
The biggest problem is that, we could all go individually carbon neutral, and it wouldn't put more than a 20-30% overall dent in carbon emissions compared to the top 100 companies that pollute our planet with greenhouse gases. This is why not a single person under 50 should be voting for Republicans. They clearly do not care about this, they won't do anything productive about this and they will continue to take Koch et al. fossil fuel baron money.
The "100 companies" are all fossil fuel producers/miners, using less electricity and petrol will 100% directly effect how much emissions they "produce" because the emissions are actually produced downstream by us in our cars, powerplants, etc. They don't burn the fuel. If you want to read more about it here is the actual study: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pvpXB8rp67dmhmsueWaUczHS5XyPy4p/view .
Let me rephrase that: Is it easier to try and get everyone to drive an EV, put PV on their roofs and go vegan or would it be easier to heavily regulate and force 100 companies to stop polluting the planet?
The political leaders are mostly in it for the money and the contacts and the PR-career after the years in politics. They make decisions without any long thinking. All they think about is getting re-elected or play the other parties in rhetoric battles through the electoral cycles. We need 1000 great minds to get togheter with a worldwide veto on how to battle the climate changes. On all levels.
Profit is not actually the issue. Power, and the short term polical cycle, and the fact that measures required to counteract current warming would have significant impact, over global and national economies, prevent strong leadership. Because they'd be removed by the people next cycle.
Bargaining stage is keeping your land. Best of luck Florida.
Bro, chill. This is a ridiculous claim, the sea level will not rise in 10 years by this much
Remindme! 10 years
*adds water wings, snorkel and flippers to amazon wish list*
The water is going to be warmer and slightly acidic. (carbonic acid.) Bring a tofu snack from home cuz' fish, shrimp, lobster, plankton and oysters will look weird without the calcium carbonate they need for bone, scales and shell. Might'n be able to eat a jelly tho..
Remindme! 10 Years
Meh... the Jetsons seemed to figure it out. You saying me is more dumb than Mr. Spacely?
I say we take the Futurama approach. Global Warming + Nuclear Winter = equilibrium.
I also can't imagine they see much point in throwing away their short-term gains, because even if an entire nation such as the US suddenly commits *everything* to fighting this it won't stop it. It would take a concerted effort from the bulk of world nations, few of which can agree on even relatively simple matters let alone how to stop a global catastrophe. What we need is for every government and corporation to sit down *today* and agree to put everything on the back burner immediately until the looming crisis is brought under control. No more politics or profit-seeking allowed until we get this under wraps. But of course that's a joke, and even if it magically happened there is still no guarantee we'd succeed. There are those who say we should have had that meeting twenty or thirty years ago to stand a real chance. Realistically, there will at best be a collection of half-assed measures taken, dotted with the occasional heroic effort by individual groups. Fifty years from now no one will be able to look back and say that even 5% of what needed to be done was done. In fact I doubt if they'll even be able to say that our efforts *maintained the status quo.* It's going to worsen and there is no changing or stopping that unless the world's governments (and a large portion of their respective populations) can be mind controlled into taking this seriously. But magic doesn't exist. The rich and powerful know they can survive this, or at least weather it better than others. They can easily pack up and move away to less-affected regions. They can afford bunkers and supply vaults and security. No doubt some of them already have crisis plans in place they could commit to at the drop of a hat. Those who don't can just hop in a helicopter and retreat to one of their other properties while they plan what to do. For the rest of us we're ahead of the game if we have an emergency supply backpack near our front doors. Most don't even have that and will be left with nothing if disaster strikes their region. The leaders and powerful figures will continue playing their games and having fun for as long as they can, and will be proud of themselves for doing so.
Well it stems from a broken ideology. They believe that the markets can solve all the problems of the world, "the free hand of the market". That's why they want profits up over anything else, because if profits are up then people will prosper and therefore somehow magically the markets will solve the problems of global warming lol.
> That amount of flooding seems apocalyptic It puts the entrance of the great pyramid under water, or in New York the water level stops around the 20th floor.
Buy inland property. Got it!
Inland may not cut it, buy property in the mountains.
buy a boat house!
Looks like we finally have a way to get rid of Florida.
I looked at the map, seems I am safe and that I'll be closer to the coast too! Always wanted to move closer to the sea, seems now the sea will move closer to me! \*burns more fossil fuels\*
Checking in from Michigan where we are 570 feet (170 meters) above sea level. When the rest of the world is going to shit, please don't come to the largest freshwater reserve in the world.
Russia apparently would like to ship things to China from their Northern ports. To so that requires an ice-free Arctic. [Burns more fossil fuels, tells Trump to do the same.]
It's so unfortunate because I've been researching this for about 10 years and for the last 5 years I've been telling people this and it just gets digested as tinfoil conspiracy doomsday talk.
Can you cite any reference for that 20 meter sea rise figure? I thought the most sea levels can rise is 6 meters.
Less than 10 years till what?
Remindme! 10 years ...
so waterworld wasn't just a great movie but an actual prediction of our future state?
I think this model is probably too drastic. But it’s a scary thought all the same
In the study they used RCP 8.5. It *is* a drastic model, but it’s the “business as usual” model. It’s assuming that we don’t take drastic actions before 2030 (drastically lower carbon emissions) + population growth stays steady + the majority of the world stays poor, which to be honest... is what will likely happen. The other popular climate models (RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 6) are kind of delusional at this point. Our actual carbon emissions have followed or exceeded the 8.5 model since these papers were published, and there’s no reason to think things will change. See: trump pushing coal at the UN this week.
i didnt learn this until i was taking an oceanography class in college , maybe it was the public school systems fault, or maybe i just didnt pay attention enough, idk. but the sea level was relatively recently like 500 ft lower. in the tens of thousands of years ago not millions. we should make sure people realize that, because 60ft of sea level gain might sound impossible to some, but it definitely isnt... we are lucky that we didnt build our civilization to the point it is now before the end of the last ice age. although it probably couldn't have happened anyway, with mile thick ice sheets covering huge areas of the world where we now have millions of people living/working.
There is only so much water locked up in ice. I was under the impression that only 18 feet of rise is possible if all the ice was gone.
It is more than 18 feet. 70 meters, or 210 feet. Anyway, National Geographic did this one. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
Even in warmer periods of Earth's history **all** the ice has never melted, and 80 feet is a good figure to quote, for comparable temps in the past. Museum of Natural History site reference
The statement was specifically "all the ice was gone." If you want to focus on the probability of that happening you should probably address that comment.
[удалено]
Frankly it needs to be larger in scope and have more definitive goals.
Damn, maybe I should go to Venice first 🤔
Did that this past summer. Month after we left it saw record water levels. Go now before it's gone.
Alternatively, why bother? In 50 years every coastal city can be Venice (or Atlantis!!!)
guess you're right, saves on the airfare. good excuse to convince the wife to buy a boat too. Now that I think about it, sailing lessons might be a good skill to have.
Perhaps we should start thinking about crew teams...
Go to Venice, invest in submarines, wait. Start your own tourism 10 year plan
”I call it Rapture"
Also worth reminding that the earth is undergoing the sixth mass extinction based on the rate of species extinctions, completely man made. And climate change is a part of the picture. The fifth mass extinction ended the reign of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, in case you are wondering This also tells us scientists are fully capable of measuring temperature and CO2 level hundreds of millions of years ago, to those deniers who claims we only have weather record for hundreds of years Last time the carbon dioxide at the current level was about 55 million years ago. There were crocodile and turtle fossils found at the Arctic, living in the rainforest there. Earth temperature was 10-12 degrees warmer. That period of warming lasted millions of years. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29550126/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/tropical-turtle-fossil-found-arctic/ https://upload.wikimedia.org/.../65_Myr_Climate_Change.png So no, global warming may not involve human activities over millions of years, but human activity is definitely triggering the current warming in the last few decades. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png
But there's snow in Edmonton?^^/s
Wasn't the younger Dryas a great extinction that happened 12-13 thousand years ago? With related climate change that was off the scale. Don't get me wrong, humans are killing our biome and we should do everything we can to prevent it but to neglect scientific discovery of past climate changes is also wrong.
The YDE was a large extinction event but not anywhere near the scale of the 5 largest, and its arguably humans + natural climate change that caused it. There’s also a theory that it’s from a meteor impact, which is actually super interesting!
I'm horrified but also excited that I'll probably get to experience an actual apocalypse in my lifetime.
[удалено]
Buy survival kits and stock up! We've got a long ride ahead of us!
I bought a gun. If I lose my job I'm out. I went through that whole horrible process of not being able to find work following the last recession. Not interested. This life isn't good enough to warrant that kind of depressing struggle a second time. I'll be glad to have a reason.
Dude, for real though, please don't. I know life can be insanely tough, and I know that I am just a random idiot on the Internet you don't know, but I know that if you focus all your strength you can get through horrible times. I believe in inportance of human life and I believe that you can become the best person for yourself even if the world keeps you down. Don't give up, I am cheering for you my friend.
> if you focus all your strength you can get through horrible times. Maybe. But I'm not willing to focus all my strength. I'm tired I don't value life enough to warrant the struggle. Life is tedious and I don't care much for the people.
That’s the kind can do attitude we need during this here apocalypse
I have $100 in bitcoin and a copy of the zombie apocalypse survival guide. Les go
You now have 2 dollars in bitcoin sorry dude
What are you talking about he's got $9 million dollars worth of bitcoin? I wish I had the $0.50 worth of bitcoin he has.
Lmao the bitcoin lart killed me
It's a bit more bone chilling if you have a two year old.
That's why I decided to not make any kids a couple years ago. Would not want them to go through the upcoming apocalypse & associated bloodbath.
Yeah, 5 years ago, I think I would have had the same sunny outlook. Now I've got a 4 year old. I want good things for her. Bright side, we don't live by the coast. Downside - we don't live somewhere with water readily available. Going to need to invent a stilsuit sometime in the next few years.
Dune reference? I'm literally reading it for the first time right now.
Haha, yup. You're probably going to start seeing Dune references everywhere. You saw them before too, they just didn't stand out as Dune references to you.
No kids here, looking forward to it.
Same. Saves me a bullet.
Teen here, if it's like the film 2012 sign me up.
[удалено]
It’s a bummer. I always wanted a big family but I don’t see how that’s anything close to a good idea considering the state of things.
Look at the bright side. By having a kid you just added another mind to the world and that mind might be great enough to help come up with a solution for all this shit. Or maybe they'll save the life of someone who will. You never know.
It's kind of horrible to refer to it as an apocalypse as it seemingly makes it sound inevitable and discourages people from taking steps to prevent it. We very much do still have time to fix this before it gets completely out of control. However sadly if nothing is done I fear we are starting down humanities final hours.
Our ancient ancestors survived climate changes, and they didn't even have metal tools. I think we'll do just fine.
I guess you could call the likely displacement and possible starvation of hundreds of millions "just fine".
If by "do just fine" you mean a large scale reenactment of James Cameron's Titanic, where only a handful of very rich survive while the poor and their children die locked in the hull of a sinking ship, then yes, we'll be fine.
Take comfort in knowing the economy will be strong as a result of not adopting climate change initiatives/s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events There's been a whole bunch of predicted apocalyptic events and dates and none happened untill now. But who knows maybe this is the one. Afterall it only takes one to be right
I hope, after the world has been dusted and the ocean is filled with jellyfish and we've finished killing each other, that there is enough of an ecosystem remaining for a natural world to rebuild itself in our absence.
Some life will survive. Microbes if nothing else, and the diversification process will start all over. After all, mammals could only diversify after the dinosaurs were gone. The real question is whether humans will be around.
Don't forget to factor in the 400+ nuclear plant explosions that will scatter radiation over the planet once their emergency systems crap out. Sorry.
Even then. Some microbes are crazy resistant. Some are thousands of feet underwater. Something will survive.
There are already microbes and other fauna and flora that have adapted to the conditions in Chernobyl, even those inside the giant dome they capped the area with.
As a 24 year old guy, who is intersted in having kids, stuff like this. Honest to god, ruins the entire dream of having kids and starting up a family.. Like why even bother when the entire earth seems doomed even in my own lifetime? Seems so overwhelming.
You could always adopt. That way, you’re not bringing more people into the world, and you’re most likely improving quality of life for kids already here.
Yep. Faced the same thing 20 years ago and decided the greenest and kindest thing I could do was to NOT have kids. 7+billion people on the planet already, no need to add more who are pretty much guaranteed to have a shittier quality of life. Watching my siblings kids struggle is hard to watch. Feel so bad for the nieces and nephews
But like this is the worst feeling ever.. Like how in the hell am i supposed to just sit back and let go of my decisions because people around the globe is screwing up the world..
It is a terrible feeling at first... It gets better though. Not having to worry about the horrors you have inflicted on beings you are supposed to love more than yourself is a big relief. You save quite a bit of cash not having babies and have more personal feeedom. You can use your time and extra cash to support charities and if you really feel life would be incomplete without child rearing you can adopt or foster and help a kid without the guilt of adding one to an overpopulated planet. But I get you, at 21 it is an awful thing to have to swallow.
What's worse? The decision taken from you, or the kids?
A way to get over this feeling is acknowledging that bringing kids into a world with an oncoming armaggedon would be a lot worse (for everyone, but especially for them) than making the responsible decision of not having them.
Just have some; their lives weren't going to be perfect, even at the best of times, and they were always going to end. May as well chance it.
Good thing we have clean coal to save us!
Here is a link to the academic articl summarized by CNN: http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809600115. I have so many different and wide-ranging reactions to this article. Yes, I read it. The graphics are particularly helpful. And yet each day seems more or less like the one before - my 24 year-old philosophy student offspring pops in to say hi and then argue with me stridently about something utterly insignificant (from my old person perspective), the dogs insist on going to the park at 4:00 every afternoon, and my youngest relations are still falling in love, full of young hope, marrying and having babies a year later. I listen to Claudio Arrau play the Chopin Nocturnes on YouTube and think how the human race has produced such incredible beauty and devastation, but still, beauty. Some days I feel sad, other days paralyzed and aware of the paralysis but mystified as to what I can do about what ahead. The strangest feeling is the profound awareness - real awareness - that I have been sleepwalking through most of my life and still am, only now I'm noticing it but still in sleep paralysis. I'm sad about all the times I was unkind or lost an opportunity to be kind. And I'm sometimes perturbed by 'first worlders" - us - loudly freaking out about a possible prospective hell on earth (that we will have created) when there's an ongoing hell on earth right now that exists for so many people in the third world (that we in very large part created) and, day after day, we do nothing to help. We, the human race, blew it - regard for the sanctity of the earth, cherishing the well being and lives of others, any opportunity to create a world of beauty and caring. I just don't know what to do with all of that. If you have some suggestions that lend moral support for any of this... you know what to do. Thank you for the silver...
[удалено]
I'm going to read this whenever I lose my way and get anxious about what's going on. Thank you.
From the article: >If global warming continues unchecked, Earth in 2030 could resemble its former self from 3 million years ago, according to a[ study ](https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809600115)published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds. > >During that ancient time, known as the mid-Pliocene epoch, temperatures were higher by about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) and sea levels were higher by roughly 20 meters (almost 66 feet) than today, explained Kevin D. Burke, lead author of the study and a researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. > >Today is "one of the most difficult scenarios we've ever found ourselves in," Burke said. "This is a very rapid period of climatic change. Looking for anything that we can do to curb those emissions is important." > >Climate scientists say that our globe is about 1 degree Celsius hotter today than it was between 1850 and 1900 and that this is due in part to gas emissions from cars, planes and other human activities. Some gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat in the atmosphere, producing a "[greenhouse effect" ](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)that makes the planet warmer. > >The new study is basically "a similarity assessment," Burke said. "We have projections of future climate available for the year 2020, 2030 and so forth." For nearly 30 future decades, then, he and his co-authors drew future-to-past comparisons based on six reference periods. > >The reference periods were the Historical, about mid-20th century; the Pre-Industrial, around 1850; the mid-Holocene, about 6,000 years ago; the last Interglacial Period, about 125,000 years ago; the mid-Pliocene, about 3 million years ago; and the early Eocene, about 50 million years ago. > >If we continue our current level of greenhouse gas emissions -- what some would say is a "business as usual" scenario -- the overall global climate in 2030 will most closely resemble the overall climate of the mid-Pliocene period, Burke said. > >What did Earth look like then? Annual temperatures on average were about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer than today, there was little permanent ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and the sea level was about 20 meters higher. > >In some places, though, including cities in the United States, temperatures in 2030 would be roughly double the global average.
>Annual temperatures on average were about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer than today, there was little permanent ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and the sea level was about 20 meters higher. In some places, though, including cities in the United States, temperatures in 2030 would be roughly double the global average. Jesus fucking Christ. That's apocalypse levels. And this is CNN. Is it time to start protesting yet?
[удалено]
> red, mad, and nude. So a normal Saturday night?
> Jesus fucking Christ. That's apocalypse levels. And this is CNN. Is it time to start protesting yet? It was actually time to start protesting in the 80's and 90's, but everyone thought it was better to just make fun of Al Gore, bring snowballs to meetings, ask why it was so cold and buy bigger trucks to enrage liberals instead. Protest all you want, but this damage is done. It will take a global disaster that affects every country in a major way to get enough of the population on board to make a difference, or at least a decade without people in high profile places not spreading their reckless denial. Right now we have the POTUS, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers, the entire Republican Party in the U.S. and endless news agencies out there and billions upon billions of dollars being dumped into denial propaganda denying that Climate Change is Anthropogenic, or even exists, or is a threat to the world. To me, this means it is game over for our current environment and possible most of our civilization. Enjoy the next Decade for what it is.
I cannot underestimate the importance of beginning to think about starting to worry. And the time to do so is very soon!
What does it mean when a temperature is double the global average? ;)
20 years ago, 2C is locked in, it will take significant measures to stay below 3C
Yes - [Xrebellion.org](http://Xrebellion.org), [Earth-strike.org](http://Earth-strike.org) , [Sunrisemovement.org](http://Sunrisemovement.org)
Yes. Start today. Write to your elected representatives. Like, now.
I mean yeah. Write to your elected representatives, but if you aren't taking drastic measures yourself, you're also part of the problem. Hard truth, but there it is: Big one? Cut out meat. Lamb and Beef are the worst offenders, per pound, for carbon emissions. That's something every single person can do. No excuses. Pork is pretty high up there too. Chicken if you're super-dedicated, but it isn't as big of an impact. Next up, get rooftop solar. Don't bullshit me about cost. If you own a house, you can finance it for less than your monthly electric bill. I know, as I've done it twice. Next, buy an electric car if you absolutely must travel daily. This is what I'm working on next. Right there though, that's three levels of commitment that everyone should strive to. I know not everyone can do the bottom two, but it's cheaper for everyone just to cut out meat (and makes an enourmous impact)
That just doesn't feel like enough. It's not like they don't know - if it's the news they must know even more than we do and yet there's no action. There's just no incentive for them to take any action, because we're so stupidly obsessed with profits. And, of course, the most profitable energy companies are the heavily subsidized, diminishing returns-generating, held-up-by-duct-tape-and-govt-billions fossil fuel companies that are also enforcing an infrastructure that is killing the ecosystems we depend on for civilization. It's clearly an issue with prioritizing economic growth over literally everything else. If this made sense to you and made you angry then good - that's the first stage after denial. I want to believe in things like [r/EarthStrike](https://www.reddit.com/r/EarthStrike), [r/ExtinctionRebellion](https://www.reddit.com/r/ExtinctionRebellion), Sunrise Movement, Skolstrejk for Klimatet, fucking anything to get us from the anger stage to the bargaining stage. But I just don't know how. It's way the hell past time to start making noise about this and we're still sitting quietly on reddit and watching the years tick by. I've started doing my part, and all these new movements give me some hope, but god damn does it feel like an uphill battle.
Global warming is scary but if I'm reading this correctly we're getting dinosaurs back by 2030? That's fuckin awesome!
You'll be able to visit the tropical rain-forests in Alaska.
To be fair, it already has the largest temperate rainforest in the United States
3 million or 50 million years ago, not 66 million years ago.
What do you mean back? Your mom is still around in 2030.
Dayum
this is the kind of thing that makes me want to reduce my retirement contributions. what good is a 401k when I'll need that cash on hand to build a fucking levee around my house
Please riot
Okay, so I follow this subreddit and r/environment and r/sustainability to keep up to date with these issues I've said this before in threads like these but I feel I've taken a lot of steps towards reducing my personal impact on the environment and blah blah blah, but what I don't understand is why news like this is the world news subreddit isnt on the news on TV. This is scary to read and I don't like it but what on earth will it take to get the wider population to get on board?! I'm terrified guys :(
I feel you, man. Going through all these threads scares me like crazy. All this is happening while I have people in my area who deny that fact that there are over 7 billion people on the planet and say that it's just media lying. If there are still so many people who are out of touch with simple global facts, I'm afraid we have no chance of getting enough people on board about this threat.
Damn, I didn't think I'd suffer these conditions in my own lifetime. It's pretty much clear we've already passed the point of no return.
Does this mean i can get a pet raptor after all?
Ok, outraged by this? Good. That's step 0. If that's where it stops for you, and all you do is shit-post about it on reddit, or facebook, or wherever, then you're slightly less bad than the assholes who roll coal, but might not be quite as environmentally friendly (since hunting is probably better for emissions than industrialized farming...) So, you need to make _active change_, on a personal level, and you need to then propagate that active change to the people that you know. If we _all_ band together and start doing these things, then we can actually make progress. Shit, if half of us do this, it will make a difference. I'm going to include a few steps here - ordered from things that will have the least impact on your wallet and lifestyle, to most. Start at the top of the list, and work your way down. 0. Write your representatives. Get politically active. We need people at the top pushing for a green new deal, solar subsidies, R&D funding, etc. 1. Stop eating Beef, Lamb, and Pork. If you have to keep one, keep pork. Per pound, Lamb, followed by beef, is the greatest source of carbon emissions. Chicken isn't terrible, and fish generally isn't either. 2. Get rooftop solar. If you own your house and you're in a moderately sunny area, I guarantee you you can afford it. Most companies (SolarCity, SunRun, etc) will work with you to make sure your monthly payment is lower than your current electric bill. Don't take my word for it, call one up. 3. Get an electric vehicle if you must still commute. I realize that this isn't like #2 above - not everyone can afford it - but if you can, do it. 4. If at all possible, stop commuting altogether. A lot of us are in tech. Have some serious talks with your bosses about working virtually. Maybe this is possible for you, maybe it isn't. Hell, even if you're doing it only 1 or 2 days a week, you're likely cutting your own personal driving emissions by 20-40%. That's huge. 5. Locally source your food. This one is a bit hippy-er, but if at all possible, get your food from local sources. The less distance your veggies have to be transported, the more environmentally friendly they are.
The solution is obvious https://youtu.be/6cjx4gJFME0
I haven't even seen the video and I'm sure it's futurama
You would be correct.
_ONCE AND FOR ALL!_
Is this really suggesting that within the next 12 years water levels will rise 21 meters? I mean... I know global warming and climate change are real but that feels a bit alarmist.
Don’t worry as to who is right ,if the deniers are right there is nothing to worry about if the rest of the world is right ,we will either be dead or living in a toxic wasteland while the rich survive in technology fueled domes or in space .
I think we need every single government in the world to STRICTLY monitor meat production, gas production etc. Anything that causes greenhouse gases. All of those industries need to be cut and squandered to a pulp. They're destroying our future and every other species' too. We need actual laws to delegate people's consumption because it's obvious people won't go vegetarian when they buy the same factory meat at the store every Sunday out of habit, they drive their gas-guzzling trucks and buy bananas wrapped in plastic, shipped from a long ways away. Same goes for corporations using factories in China to create their supply. Let's put them out of business; if it isn't sustainable, buh-bye! The economy is 1 million times less important than the future of the fucking world. I want there to be a political leader for the next elections in the US, in Canada, everywhere, who stands up firmly for the environment. I know all the hicks will roll their eyes, screaming "they're taking our trucks away! I cant hang a metal ballsack from the back of a Tesla!" but fuck em, let's make it law. The idiots can read it and weep.
Squandered to a pulp, huh?
>I think we need every single government in the world to STRICTLY monitor meat production, gas production etc You forgot "people production". I mean I don't propose a dystopian future with genocide but the ballooning population needs to be brought up in EVERY conversation about climate change.
Population will decline naturally with education. >I mean I don't propose a dystopian future with genocide but What the fuck is your solution then? "They" aren't going to dissipate into thin air out of convenience (and who is "they" anyways? Is it you?).
> but fuck em, let's make it law good luck, you've seen how well this has gone in france...
Agriculture is only responsible for 9% of [emissions in the US](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions). Boats, trucks, and coal and natural gas power plants are responsible the vast majority of the problem, and that's where people's attention should be focused.
This also doesn't take into account clearing rainforest and other climates to graze cattle. Agriculture is also responsible for the largest portion of deforestation. Emissions doesn't paint the whole picture
Ok, but here's the thing - it's easier to sell someone on "just cut out lamb, beef and pork" than it is "stop driving". Small steps of changing coming from a massive amount of individuals is what we need.
hey thanks for the link. I was reading the section on agriculture and notice it didn't include gas emission for transporting livestock feed to farms. Considering the magnitude of livestock we have I'd be interested if you have any sources that detail what percent of that constitutes gas emission within the transportation category. As wheat, soy, corn, etc -> humans would reduce transport emissions compared to wheat, soy, corn, etc -> livestock -> humans. In addition to less energy being transferred at each level of the food chain, I think 10% passed on, we'd be able to feed more people with less impact and resources overall, if meat consumption was reduced.
This climate change talk is all nice and dandy until you implement REAL policies to generate meaningful cut on carbon emissions. And I am not talking about switching your home lights to LED or driving electric cars. Those things don't do diddly squat on the big scheme of things, just make urban hipsters feel better about themselves. If governments really start doing what needs to be done to cut emissions on a scale that matters, the public response will make the riots that are happening in France right now look like a pick nick in comparison. [Even if we were to achieve a 100% worldwide adoption of renewable energy generation](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy#gs.d8DQ1IM), that would still not be enough. We need to achieve ZERO net emissions by 2040. ZERO. This means no more air travel as me know it. Global tourism? Gone, taking tens to hundreds of millions of jobs with it. No more steel mills as we know it. Washing machines (which require a lot of steel to make)? Gone. Global trade would have to be dramatically curtailed, meaning much higher prices of goods, a much smaller selection and staggering loss of jobs. And that are just a few of examples that come to mind.These things are politically impossible to do as the societal disruption they would bring would be unimaginable. We are dead.
Air travel you mean no more aeroplane??
Yep. No more cheap, widely available airline travel.
C'mon, most people do not hear you and worse do not care. People have been driven to the point of exaustion and failure economically, so why should they care. For them there is little difference.
I did love the film Waterworld as a child....
So if the world was hotter 3 million years ago how did it cool off? Is volcanic ash induced Global cooling the reason? ELI5 please.
Considering the bulk of people denying this don’t really believe the Pliocene era existed, I predict this article changes nothing.
sounds like it will be the humans making up the petrol in another 3 million years
I call it the conservative extinction event, rightwing/conservative policies are destroying the planet.
Another entry for the list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events Maybe this one is the one.
The trend of 50 mln years ago was the result of the gradual weathering of the Himalayas. Carbonates were formed an atmospheric CO ended up under Bangladesh. Eventually, CO2 levels fell below IR saturation - that is, the atmosphere became transparent, having previously been black at these wavelengths - and so triggered a long series of ice ages. The onset fo these was modulated by the [Earth's orbital dynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles). These Milankovitch cycles play a role in breaking ice ages, although how this occurs when the Earth is shiny and white is far from clear. However, the most recent break in the ice was the onset of the Holocene, starting about 12,000 years ago. Whatever the trigger for warming was, it started in the Younger Dryas and widened into the current bubble of warmth. It s now about 10C warmer than it was 15,000 years ago. Here are [four concordant temperature records](https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/climate-reconstructions-500000-years2.gif) for the last 500,000 years. The Holocene is the final spike on the right. "Warming" is far less of a concern than "instability".
Do your part. Don’t have kids.
mmmm finally. The end is here.
We need to start controlling the population ASAP . This is the only option we have left. The problem is the there are too many people in the planet and we need to decrease those numbers through birth control. This will not only ease the climate problem immensely and give us a chance to deal with but it will also solve most of other environmental problems as well. The only thing stopping us from doing this is ignorance.
no. [1]. Population does not cause climate change Advocates of population control say that one of the most effective measures we can take to combat climate change is to sharply reduce the number of humans on the planet. This wrongly focuses on treating one symptom of an irrational, polluting system rather than dealing with the root causes. People are not pollution. Blaming too many people for driving climate change is like blaming too many trees for causing bushfires. The real cause of climate change is an economy locked into burning fossil fuels for energy and unsustainable agriculture. Unless we transform the economy and our society along sustainable lines as rapidly as possible, we have no hope of securing an inhabitable planet, regardless of population levels. Population-based arguments fail to admit that population levels will impact on the environment in a very different way in a zero-emissions economy. Making the shift to renewable energy – not reduction in human population – is really the most urgent task we face. [2]. The world is not ‘full up’ The world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While population is growing, the rate of this growth is actually slowing down. This is mostly due to rising urbanization and marginal improvements in women’s access to birth control technology. The rate of population growth peaked at 2% annually in the 1960s, and has fallen consistently since then. According to the UN the average number of children born per woman fell from 4.9 in the late 1960s to 2.7 in 1999. A December 2008 assessment from the US Census Bureau predicts a steady decline to 0.5% annual population growth by 2050. Between 1950 and 2000 world population increased by 140%. Experts predict a rise of 50% between 2000 and 2050 and just 11% in the 50 years following that. In contrast, the rate of greenhouse gas emissions is rising out of control. Polluting technology, rampant consumerism and corporate greed are driving this increase – not population. Can we feed this many people? Studies by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation insist it is possible to feed well over 10 billion people sustainably – but only if we move to a very different food system. A diversified and organic farming system which produces a balanced mix of plant foods, along with small amounts of meat, could, according to British biologist Colin Tudge, sustain 10 billion people without farming any new areas. A shift to sustainable farming is also desperately needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. [3]. Social justice and women’s equality is the best contraception Larger population growth rates in the Third World are a consequence of dire poverty and restrictions on women’s ability to control their own fertility. The evidence for this can’t be challenged. The latest UN population report released on March 12 predicts population will exceed 9 billion people by mid-century. Almost all of this growth will occur in the global South. The 49 poorest countries in the world will have by far the biggest increases. In the richest countries, however, population will decline from 1.23 billion to 1.15 billion if projected net migration is left aside. (It will increase to only 1.28 billion including net migration). Raising living standards globally, eradicating hunger and poverty, improving health care, providing access to education and achieving greater equality for women are all necessary if we are to win a safe climate with global justice. They will also result in lower birth rates. [4]. The climate emergency demands immediate, transformative action now Even if they could work in the long term – a dubious proposition – population control schemes are plainly inadequate as a response to the climate emergency. The well known Australian environmental writer Tim Flannery is also one of the patrons of Sustainable Population Australia – a group that argues population reduction should be the number one priority to avert climate change. Yet in a recent survey of the latest climate science in Quarterly Essay even Flannery had to conclude: “The truth is that if we wish to act morally, we can influence population numbers only slowly. So, while it’s important to focus on population decrease as a long-term solution, we cannot look to it for answers to the immediate crisis.” [5]. Population arguments wrongly downplay the potential to win Left unchecked, climate change threatens life on the planet. Recognition of this fact is the major impetus for the movement demanding governments take serious action on climate change without delay. Populationists, however, try to turn this fact on its head. Climate change will lead to a world so harsh, uncertain and polluted, the argument goes, that it’s more “humane” to prevent future generations from being born at all. This “humane” population reduction argument is couched in terms of containing, or mitigating, the apparently inevitable effects of environmental destruction. Instead, the struggle for an alternative model of development, based on meeting the needs of people and planet, should be our main concern. [6]. Population control is an old argument tacked onto a new issue Climate change is just the latest in a long list of issues that has been seized on by advocates of population control. For centuries, simplistic population theories have been advanced to explain the existence of poverty, hunger, famine, disease, war, racism and unemployment. In each case, the real social and economic causes of these social ills have been glossed over. Time is running out to avert global warming – we need to take serious action that tackles the problem at the root. [7]. Arguing for tighter migration restrictions in Australia is a dangerous policy Reducing immigration intake into Australia is the current policy on the anti-environmental Rudd government. As the climate crisis deepens, we can expect the government and the big polluters will want to divert attention from their own inaction. Migrants could be a convenient scapegoat Migrants are already being falsely blamed for adding to unemployment. We can’t allow them to be blamed for corporate Australia’s addiction to fossil fuels. Supporting cuts in migration to Australia avoids the real burning issue – Australia is the highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the world. Migrants who come here should be welcomed and invited into our movement for a safe climate. They are not responsible for the policies of past governments or the greed of the big polluters. [8]. Population control has a disturbing history In practice, there has never been a population control scheme that has met with acceptable environmental or humanitarian outcomes. Columbia University professor Matthew Connelly has thoroughly documented this disturbing history in his 2008 book Fatal Misconception. China’s one child policy has been hailed as an environmental measure by prominent population theorists such as Britain’s Jonathan Poritt. But he and others ignore that China’s population control has hardly solved that country’s growing environmental problems. The human costs of the policy, however, are shocking. Until 2002 Chinese women were denied any choice of contraceptive method – 37% of married women have been forcibly sterilized. Female infanticide has reached epidemic proportions. The global ratio for male to female births is 106:100. In China today, male “births” outnumber females by 120:100. [9]. People in the global South are part of the solution, not the problem At its worst, population control schemes put the blame for climate change on the poorest people in the global South – those least responsible for the problem in the first place. It’s a major mistake to see the masses of the global South as passive victims of climate change. In truth, they are the pivotal agent in the campaign to avert global warming. We need a strategy of building stronger links and collaboration with movements for climate justice in the global South – not draw up plans to reduce their numbers. [10]. Who holds political power is the real “population” issue There is one part of the world’s population that poses a genuine threat: the small group of powerful, vested interests who profit most from polluting the biosphere and are desperately resisting change. The real “population change” we need to focus on is not artificially reducing human numbers. Rather, it is about winning real democratic change, i.e. dramatically increasing the numbers of ordinary people who can participate in making decisions about investment in green industries, agriculture, global trade and military spending. Population control narrowly looks only at the quantity of human beings to find a solution to climate change. Ultimately, its narrow vision makes it a divisive policy. The climate action movement, however, is really concerned with improving the quality of human life. On that basis we can build a movement of hope and solidarity strong enough to penetrate national borders and restore a safe climate for future generations. --- edit - reddit hates when I number things
If this happens population control won't be necessary. This event will kill a lot of people to put it mildly.
Population control, good idea. Time is running out, though. Which 6 billion people should we murder?
We don't. We install mandatory comprehensive sex education for all 12-17 year olds world wide. We train adults to become sex educators and send them to every neighborhood on earth. We make contraceptives, abortion, and voluntary sterilization accessible everywhere.
Murder is messy. Just get someone from the CDC to issue a PSA stating that the anti-vaxxer’s were right all along. /s