This is a complete misrepresentation of my position, I thought I had made clear that I understand that climate change is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. Our difference is not about that fact, but about the reality that it is not a problem that affects us "regular folk" in our immediate everyday life, and therefore we "regular people" cannot be expected to drop all our immediate concerns and problems, (i.e.) college tuition, medical expense, unsafe railways, etc. and read seven books on climate change as you suggested.OK, I won't argue with you. Though regarding the conception that it's not a problem effecting all of this, perhaps this summer's growing season and next winter's food prices will help bring it a little closer to home. Of course, there are plenty of people around who have experienced the problems caused by increasing warmth, moisture and energy being incorporating into our global heat distribution engine: Extreme Weather Events and Our Changing Climate 2000-2010 http://www.capefarewell.com/climate-science/the-science/extreme-weather-events.html ========================== I do want to be clear my wrath is all about the social acceptability of misrepresenting and out and lying about what the scientists are telling us and what the evidence is. We're scared and and trapped because we've created this self cannibalizing economic system that even (without the climate situation) is wholly unsustainable and contemptuous of real life limitations we should have been paying attention to and respecting - rather than jumping into the Reaganomics fantasy. But, that train has left the station and is going at full throttle. :down:
It's pure hubris to think that we can be so destructive and still not be threatened with extinction ourselves.ditto
It's pure hubris to think that we can be so destructive and still not be threatened with extinction ourselves.ditto As the human population goes down the amount and rate of destruction should go down, at least after the majority of nuclear strikes have occurred. So about 500,000,000 people scattered around the planet should be able to survive a few centuries, it is just a question of how far techno-civilization would fall. We need lots of rugged solar powered tablets that individually store most of human knowledge. :lol: Read The Long Tomorrow by leigh Brackett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tomorrow_(novel) psik
As the human population goes down the amount and rate of destruction should go down, at least after the majority of nuclear strikes have occurred. So about 500,000,000 people scattered around the planet should be able to survive a few centuries, it is just a question of how far techno-civilization would fall. We need lots of rugged solar powered tablets that individually store most of human knowledge. :lol: Read The Long Tomorrow by leigh Brackett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tomorrow_(novel) psikAs I've been recommending, read the science and stop with the fiction. The changes forced by climate change in the coming years aren't going to have a human population hard deck, I see no evidence at all that our population decrease is going to halt at 500,000,000 if we continue knocking all the ecological underpinnings out that make complex life possible on the planet in the first place. The assumptions you keep presenting as fact here ignore how inter-connected the biosphere really is. And we're effectively blasting it apart relentlessly.
As I've been recommending, read the science and stop with the fiction. The changes forced by climate change in the coming years aren't going to have a human population hard deck, I see no evidence at all that our population decrease is going to halt at 500,000,000 if we continue knocking all the ecological underpinnings out that make complex life possible on the planet in the first place. The assumptions you keep presenting as fact here ignore how inter-connected the biosphere really is. And we're effectively blasting it apart relentlessly.Of course there is no evidence. It is nothing but speculation about the future. But morality isn't going to kill people because they deserve it. But 500,000,000 people would put a lot less strain on the environment the 7 billion plus. So all that would have to happen would be enough to survive for a few centuries while the planet seeks a new equilibrium. I am not saying the population will never go below half a billion but that would be low enough to stop pumping ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I expect wars over resources before the population gets down to half a billion to kill more people than environmental issues directly. Once starvation starts the wars will be triggered to see who does and does not starve. You just think people are easier to kill and that millions of people would be less lucky than I do. psik
As I've been recommending, read the science and stop with the fiction. The changes forced by climate change in the coming years aren't going to have a human population hard deck, I see no evidence at all that our population decrease is going to halt at 500,000,000 if we continue knocking all the ecological underpinnings out that make complex life possible on the planet in the first place. The assumptions you keep presenting as fact here ignore how inter-connected the biosphere really is. And we're effectively blasting it apart relentlessly.Of course there is no evidence. It is nothing but speculation about the future. Not sure what "no evidence" you are talking about. Do you think that if we don't know exactly how every stage will play out that perhaps it means it won't happen? There is plenty of knowledge about past climate fluctuations and their causes… and how long Earth's biosphere has taken to recover - It's certain to take many hundreds, {if not thousands}, of years for Earth to process the sky rocketing greenhouse gases we have injected over the past century and a half… plus the vast quantities that permafrost melting and forest fires will be injecting, not to mention the methane monster we are stirring up. The melting of our planet's cryosphere will take centuries to finish what's been started. Likewise the rearrangement of ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns will take centuries to settle down... and after the great die off, it'll take many millennia for decimated species to evolve and reestablish stable species and biosphere. And our leaders can't think past the next election and quarterly financial statements, while the general public is increasing focused on making it to their next paycheck and shopping trips. Not good - when I started my preaching about AGW it seemed there were still options and hope, no matter how slim they seemed… any more the shear futility is beginning to overwhelm.
However, there is a possible positive aspect. I would guess that each major catastophe humans have experienced has been a motivating force for advancement. If we survive, we may learn to trust education and science more, be more aware and distrustful of self-interest, and to work together as a team that consists of our species for the good of all, not just small groups.
Occam
I figure there will be an end to life on earth as we know it, but some humans will survive the crisis, they will go on to overpopulate the earth again, deny the damage humans do to it, blame it on something else, pray to whatever gods are handy and the cycle will start all over again.
Lois
Damn, it’s bad enough when the program erases one’s post. It’s worse when I do it myself by stupidly hitting the wrong key. Oh well. Try again.
Nah, Lois. In the four or five decades before it begins to destroy the advanced countries genetic engineering will have been able to modify all sperm and ova to make the follwing generations far more intelligent. They’ll be able to prevent it from occurring again.
However, on the other side, if they can’t find and block genes for self-interest, lack of empathy, and desire to rule, and replace them with humanistic, cooperative, work-together-for-the-benefit-of-all genes, then you are probably right, Lois.
Occam
Not sure what "no evidence" you are talking about. Do you think that if we don't know exactly how every stage will play out that perhaps it means it won't happen? There is plenty of knowledge about past climate fluctuations and their causes… and how long Earth's biosphere has taken to recover - Not good - when I started my preaching about AGW it seemed there were still options and hope, no matter how slim they seemed… any more the shear futility is beginning to overwhelm.Evidence of whether or not human beings can survive the changes as a species. I suspect more people will be killed as a result of wars over the resources to survive rather than actually killed by the environmental changes. But a population of 500,000,000 would mean the elimination of 93% of the population. I think that is pretty pessimistic. But with the reduced population pressure the reasons for wars should decrease and the remaining population could concentrate on surviving the disrupted planet. psik
Damn, it's bad enough when the program erases one's post. It's worse when I do it myself by stupidly hitting the wrong key. Oh well. Try again. -------------- Nah, Lois. In the four or five decades before it begins to destroy the advanced countries genetic engineering will have been able to modify all sperm and ova to make the follwing generations far more intelligent. They'll be able to prevent it from occurring again. However, on the other side, if they can't find and block genes for self-interest, lack of empathy, and desire to rule, and replace them with humanistic, cooperative, work-together-for-the-benefit-of-all genes, then you are probably right, Lois. OccamI don't think they'll get that far in genetic engineering before humans destroy themselves. Lois
I don't think they'll get that far in genetic engineering before humans destroy themselves. LoisDoes that wording mean Lois is an alien? :lol: psik
Of course there is no evidence. It is nothing but speculation about the future.What are you referring to. The science behind the globe warming up is solid based on the fundamental principles, as the radiative balance is forced upwards by slowing the outward transmission of longwave EM the planet will inevitably warm as we've been seeing for the past three decades or more. And it's also well established that as the planet warms the climate will change globally meaning that rapid shifts will drive many species to extinction if they can not adapt or move with the shifting isotherms. Catastrophic climate change isn't a theory, it's a process that has already begun, 25% of coral reefs have already died heading for as much as 90% in 35 years, that's a huge change in a very short period for one of the most important habitats on the planet and that's just a start.
But morality isn't going to kill people because they deserve it.This is about relentless physical processes that once started can't be reversed in human lifetimes or even generations. Large scale ecological collapses are going to make food, water and possibly even breathable oxygen a scarce resource. It's not about morality, it's about sanity, it's insane to destroy the life support systems on what is the only life boat we have.
But 500,000,000 people would put a lot less strain on the environment the 7 billion plus. So all that would have to happen would be enough to survive for a few centuries while the planet seeks a new equilibrium. I am not saying the population will never go below half a billion but that would be low enough to stop pumping ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I expect wars over resources before the population gets down to half a billion to kill more people than environmental issues directly. Once starvation starts the wars will be triggered to see who does and does not starve.And who decides who those 500 million are and do we risk doing business as usual with the assumption that there will be 500 million or 1 million after the worst impacts of climate change and all the other destructive human activity begin to reach critical ecological levels? We're initiating changes that re-write the way the entire biosphere behaves, I thinks it's nuts to assume that something as fragile as human civilization will last very long with the pressures we're creating and once that is gone then people will be thrown back into ancient modes of living in a global environment that is more hostile than our ancestors ever experienced. Many of the species and habitats they found so beneficial are rapidly being wiped out by modern human activity right now.
You just think people are easier to kill and that millions of people would be less lucky than I do. psikTake away modern civilization and most people are not going to survive and with declining resources other people are going to be one of the biggest threats to those left. With little to eat, what do you think is going to be a prime source of protein in a post collapse world. It's not going to be a place where many would want to find themselves and yet most people go blissfully on pretending that there is no real crisis looming or finding ever more complex mind games to play to avoid a very stark reality. We've mistaken comfort for safety and the inevitable consequences are here.
Take away modern civilization and most people are not going to survive and with declining resources other people are going to be one of the biggest threats to those left.Are most of the people on the planet living in modern civilization? I recently saw an article about rural schools in India. Most of them did not have plumbing for toilets. What about the kids in Ethiopia that did not have schools or reading material that they dropped tablets on? http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/10/ethiopian_kids.php So the death rate among the high tech areas may be higher or for different reasons than in low tech areas. Where will nukes be targeted if they are let loose? I just think killing off enough humans to not leave a sufficient gene pool to restart is more difficult that you do. psik
Are most of the people on the planet living in modern civilization? I recently saw an article about rural schools in India. Most of them did not have plumbing for toilets. What about the kids in Ethiopia that did not have schools or reading material that they dropped tablets on? http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/10/ethiopian_kids.php So the death rate among the high tech areas may be higher or for different reasons than in low tech areas. Where will nukes be targeted if they are let loose? I just think killing off enough humans to not leave a sufficient gene pool to restart is more difficult that you do. psikModern medicine and agriculture allow so many people to be here, see the green revolution for one. You seem to have a tough time grasping what creating a large scale ecological collapse would be like. Just surviving one would be a challenge for many species and as most members of our species are reliant on modern technology whatever your misconceptions, once that is gone we become just as vulnerable as most species to becoming extinct. Your apparent belief in some kind of human exclusivity seems almost religious to me.
Take away modern civilization and most people are not going to survive and with declining resources other people are going to be one of the biggest threats to those left. With little to eat, what do you think is going to be a prime source of protein in a post collapse world. It's not going to be a place where many would want to find themselves and yet most people go blissfully on pretending that there is no real crisis looming or finding ever more complex mind games to play to avoid a very stark reality. We've mistaken comfort for safety and the inevitable consequences are here.Fuzzy, ever hear the quote: "Buy 'em books, and buy 'em books - and all's they do is eat the covers."
You seem to have a tough time grasping what creating a large scale ecological collapse would be like.So you can believe I am stupid. I do not have a problem with that. But that does not mean ALL HUMANS would be killed in a large scale ecological disaster. What record do we have of billions of a somewhat intelligent species trying to cope with large scale ecological disasters? NONE! We are both just speculating. But 500,000,000 people would not be all that many spread over the entire planet. That is half the population in 1800. psik
You seem to have a tough time grasping what creating a large scale ecological collapse would be like.So you can believe I am stupid. I do not have a problem with that. But that does not mean ALL HUMANS would be killed in a large scale ecological disaster. What record do we have of billions of a somewhat intelligent species trying to cope with large scale ecological disasters? NONE! We are both just speculating. But 500,000,000 people would not be all that many spread over the entire planet. That is half the population in 1800. psik For the record, it's 7 billion and rising and every one of us is burning something every day in a closed atmosphere. Lois
It's pure hubris to think that we can be so destructive and still not be threatened with extinction ourselves.ditto As the human population goes down the amount and rate of destruction should go down Guess you aren't familiar with some of the monster tipping points out their such as methane hydrates http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790 We have a tendency to look at issues isolated from one another - but there are many threats developing in concert http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/11-human-health-threats-from-climate-change.htm And the deal with the ocean acidification {or dealkinization}, Craig Welch at the Seattle Time recently wrote some enlighten and most frightening articles reporting on ocean acidification and the damage that is already being observed (it's no longer conjectures of the obvious) I put together a short summation and links to Craig Welch's work over here http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/04/ocean-acidification-already-eating-away.html ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Our climate system has huge momentum behind it, and like a freighter it takes a lot of effort to get it to change course - society has been pushing with increasing ferocity for a couple centuries now, and the monster machine has been perturbed and is heading off into a direction not seen in many, many million years - Actually, never since this is an absolutely unique experience for our planet. But, scientists say when looked at in perspective the changes are happening with a speed only rivaled by an asteroid hits. Here's one for the road: "A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms" http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
For the record, it's 7 billion and rising and every one of us is burning something every day in a closed atmosphere. LoisYou haven't seen the previous posts. I am presuming 6 billion plus would be killed off in the apocalypse. The issue is whether or not the remainder would survive the post-apoc. There would then be fewer people to cause more ecological damage. But how much infrastructure would be left to work with. But if humans survived without it 10,000 years ago why shouldn't some still do it? psik