Climate Change Still Denied?

How do you know?

 

Because your kids exist

I know that sounds stupid, but that is the argument, we are outputing emissions over 500 times per person than we were 300 years ago. Either do something about the number of humans or have them all cut their footprint by 99.9%

Having global summits promising to cut emissions by 5% over 5 years based on current emissions is ridiculous, there will be an extra 6-7% more humans in 5 years

 

Vanilla

But how does that make my carbon footprint bigger than yours as individuals? I don’t know what life style you lead.

OK so let me see – are you advocating some type of culling of the human race or mass sterilization, laws to stop people breeding or what?

Do you think a global summit with that agenda would get very far?

*

I’ve already said that there needs to be a holistic approach which would include the issue of population growth which is rather complex.

The population replacement rate is 2.1 that would keep a population level stable not growing nor falling. Now some countries have fertility rates that are higher like Niger or Afghanistan that are over 7 (UN figures 2009) but in other places the level is low than 2.1 like in France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy and the US is below the level with a total fertility rate of 1.89. (We have one child and that not uncommon in the UK where the average I believe is around 1.7)

Population growth is not happening uniformly in many places populations are actually falling.

They are national figures but there is something else – fertility rates are not uniform within societies with differences in rates across the socioeconomic range.

The things that do seem to have an impact are women’s rights, social security, welfare and healthcare.

Women seem to generally choose to have fewer children if they have the power to do so.

Places with very little or no public assistance (unemployment benefits, state pensions etc) see their children as an economic resource for times of hardship or old age, the more that reach an age at which they work the more money is brought into the family.

Also when infant mortality rates are low, parents are assured that their children will live to adulthood voluntarily decide to have fewer children

 

No, I'm saying thats why the argument is ridiculous, cut things by 5, 10% when we are 500-600% above where we where pre industrial revolution

 

[SIZE=11pt]Vanilla[/SIZE]

So your saying let’s do nothing since we are all fucked anyway so why shouldn’t we burn all the fossil fuels and fuck up the earth big time.

And who cares about what we leave the kids – I don’t have any so doesn’t bother me - it's your own fucking stupid fault for having them.

*

Is that it - you haven’t got a clue what to do and absolutely nothing constructive to contribute?

 

What is your answer then?

First off that figure, how much do we need to cut emissions by, do you agree with me its around 99%, or do you prefer a figure thats a bit easier and means you might not have to give up air conditioning

Then how do you get everyone else on the earth to agree?, Thats everyone, includes North Korea, Syria, Boko Haram, every airline, every car company.....pretty much everyone of the 6 billion or so tha live on more than $1.25 a day

 

[SIZE=11pt]Vanilla[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I believe the figure is 70% to 95% over the next 35-50 years. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I don’t have air conditioning, again why are you making such assumptions? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

I don’t think we will get everyone to agree, but we only need to get enough.

Again your stance seems to be we can’t do fuck so why should we even try and do something to stop the crap from happening – sorry your kids are screwed and I don’t give a shit because I don’t have any.

 

We're never going back to where we used to be, but there seems to be no upper limit to how bad things can get if CO2 emissions continue to grow, so any cut is a good cut. There's a big difference between having sea levels ultimately rise 10 feet or 100 feet, in terms of human suffering.

 

The fact is we are already screwed, the question at hand now is "how long and how bad".
Those two factors can be mitigated by reducing emissions now, and any amount will help.

But I do see and agree with VG's point (rare occurrence, mark your calendars!) in that in the face of a growing population and the continuing struggle to "be on top and have all the goodies" that is moving through the "third world" countries is going to make the emissions reductions proposed almost ineffectual because the new humans will be contributing to the emissions and so is it a wash?

Radical and drastic changes will need to be made to try and make this at all manageable in the coming decades.



maybe it's time for an asteroid strike.......

 

Aliens

 

Are there any reliable estimates on when the ice caps will melt?

Or a good map of what the Earth will look like after they do? I have only found local ones that show parts of continents, not the whole Earth.

 

Frog

Do you not know how to us Google?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

 

We really need to push for global institutions (and reform the ones we have UN, World Bank, IMF etc) we need multinational agreements that are properly funded and have some teeth behind them.

 

Interesting map. I've heard much talk of losing Florida, but the map clearly shows that all of Delaware will also go away, along with most of New Jersey, nearly all of Louisiana, half of South Carolina, and about a third of North Carolina.

I don't know how many years it's been since the last time the earth was ice-free, but there is evidence of it in eastern NC. Quite a bit of sand remains near the high water mark, which can sometimes be seen in pictures from outer space. The ancient shoreline runs close to I-95.

Some people say that major coastal cities could be preserved by surrounding them with levee systems like the one around New Orleans, but they would become islands separated from land by quite a few miles of open ocean. I don't think that would work.

 

South Carolina is the same. As soon as you cross through Columbia going towards the coast the soil changes drastically from red clay to sand. The landscape also changes from hilly to very flat.

not that I think ocean levels will rise that much in my lifetime but if they do ill be so much closer to the beach! Jay/kay

 

I'm sitting at about 8' above sea level, so I'm gonna be gettin' wet if it all goes sloshy.

 

Check here to see how deep you'll be! lol, it say's I'll still be high and dry at 237m above water! :crowngrin:

http://www.floodmap.net/

Right clic on the red arrow for depth in your area.

 

Can you imagine SC without Charleston or Myrtle Beach? I can't.

I'm still struggling to come to terms with a future NC without the entire Outer Banks island chain, and all its lighthouses, historical sites, wild horses, and local culture. But... I do believe most or all of it will be gone in my lifetime. All year long, the NC-DOT fights coastal erosion with an army of big yellow machines, and they are slowly but surely losing the battle.

Nature will almost surely form a new line of barrier islands further west, but they will be empty, with no history.

You might think the NC mountains would be mostly immune to climate change, but reduced snowfall has been very hard on the ski resorts and other businesses that depend on their visitors. Of the two largest hotels in Boone in the 1980's, one is now a college dorm, and the other has been demolished.

 

Their default setting of a 251m rise is totally absurd. That brings the Atlantic coast in all the way to Winston-Salem, and almost to Altanta. I trust the NGS map a lot more.

I see that even at 100m, the Hudson River connects to the Saint Lawrence River, turning New England into a huge island. At lower flood levels like 10m, their map has data missing west of Myrtle Beach and Jacksonville, FL.

 

LOL, it seems a little extreme to say the least.