- Nov 14, 2017 at 1:07 pm #3502061
World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second NoticeNov 15, 2017 at 1:45 am #3502180
This article is a response after 25 years to the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” made in 1992 by the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1,700 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences. The original warning called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction, and cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided”.
It feared that humanity was pushing Earth’s ecosystems beyond their capacities to support the web of life, and described how we are fast approaching many of the limits of what the biosphere can tolerate without substantial and irreversible harm. They pleaded that the human population be stabilized, describing how our large population—swollen by another 2 billion people since 1992, a 35 % increase—exerts stresses on Earth that can overwhelm efforts to realize a sustainable future. They implored that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be cut, fossil fuels phased out, deforestation reduced, and the trend of collapsing biodiversity reversed.
This second notice, by William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome, Mauro Galetti, Mohammed Alamgir, Eileen Crist, Mahmoud I. Mahmoud, William F. Laurance, and 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries, has just been published (13 November 2017). This 25th anniversary response reviews the earlier warning, and evaluates the human response by exploring available time-series data. In that time period, apart from stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in solving the foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are severely worsening. The authors were especially troubled by the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural production—particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption. Moreover, they consider that humanity has unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could well be annihilated or facing extinction by the end of this century.
Though brief, it makes for sobering reading. This crisis is real, urgent, and we need to deal with it. I can’t help but feel it puts contemporary worries, such as mass shootings, gun control, immigration policies – even fears of the effects of international political destabilization, terrorism, the refugee crisis, and threats of nuclear attack – into proper perspective. If we cannot properly deal with this manmade environmental crisis, these other concerns will prove to be of complete insignificance. We need to find the will to confront it.
Nov 15, 2017 at 2:45 am #3502200
- This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Robert Meurant.
Figure 1. Trends over time for environmental issues identified in the 1992 scientists’ warning to humanity. The years before and after the 1992 scientists’ warning are shown as gray and black lines, respectively. Panel (a) shows emissions of halogen source gases, which deplete stratospheric ozone, assuming a constant natural emission rate of 0.11 Mt CFC-11-equivalent per year. In panel (c), marine catch has been going down since the mid-1990s, but at the same time, fishing effort has been going up (supplemental file S1). The vertebrate abundance index in panel (f) has been adjusted for taxonomic and geographic bias but incorporates relatively little data from developing countries, where there are the fewest studies; between 1970 and 2012, vertebrates declined by 58 percent, with freshwater, marine, and terrestrial populations declining by 81, 36, and 35 percent, respectively (file S1). Five-year means are shown in panel (h). In panel (i), ruminant livestock consist of domestic cattle, sheep, goats, and buffaloes. Note that y-axes do not start at zero, and it is important to inspect the data range when interpreting each graph. Percentage change, since 1992, for the variables in each panel are as follows: (a) –68.1%; (b) –26.1%; (c) –6.4%; (d) +75.3%; (e) –2.8%; (f) –28.9%; (g) +62.1%; (h) +167.6%; and (i) humans: +35.5%, ruminant livestock: +20.5%. Additional descriptions of the variables and trends, as well as sources for figure 1, are included in file S1.Nov 16, 2017 at 10:24 am #3502374
The article suggests diverse and effective steps that humanity can take to transition to sustainability include:
a) prioritizing the enactment of connected well-funded and well-managed reserves for a significant proportion of the world’s terrestrial, marine, freshwater, and aerial habitats;
b) maintaining nature’s ecosystem services by halting the conversion of forests, grasslands, and other native habitats;
c) restoring native plant communities at large scales, particularly forest landscapes;
d) rewilding regions with native species, especially apex predators, to restore ecological processes and dynamics;
e) developing and adopting adequate policy instruments to remedy defaunation, the poaching crisis, and the exploitation and trade of threatened species;
f) reducing food waste through education and better infrastructure;
g) promoting dietary shifts towards mostly plant-based foods;
h) further reducing fertility rates by ensuring that women and men have access to education and voluntary family-planning services, especially where such resources are still lacking;
i) increasing outdoor nature education for children, as well as the overall engagement of society in the appreciation of nature;
j) divesting of monetary investments and purchases to encourage positive environmental change;
k) devising and promoting new green technologies and massively adopting renewable energy sources while phasing out subsidies to energy production through fossil fuels;
l) revising our economy to reduce wealth inequality and ensure that prices, taxation, and incentive systems take into account the real costs that consumption patterns impose on our environment; and
m) estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term, while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal.
Nov 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm #3502391
- This reply was modified 2 months ago by Robert Meurant.
free birth control : )Nov 17, 2017 at 4:17 am #3502517
The latest cringeworthy environmental effort from the Trump administration:
“The elephant population has declined drastically. Let’s fast-track them for extinction, while we still can!”
The bodies of elephants killed by poachers are left behind in Bouba Ndjidah National Park, in Cameroon. Researchers for the Great Elephant Census found only 148 elephants in the entire country.
African Elephant Numbers Plummet 30 Percent, Landmark Survey FindsNov 17, 2017 at 5:08 am #3502564
jeffrey armbrusterBPL Member
@bookLocale: Northern California
Trump is evil. Period. This is another Obama directive that he overturned…because Obama did it. The man is deranged.Nov 17, 2017 at 5:14 am #3502567
Jeffrey – yes I agree, free birth control just makes sense, but there simply seems little commonsense in recent US administrative decisions or policy. And Trump does appear as the embodiment of myopic self-interest. The rash of anti-Obama legislation attempts just seem really petty, reactionary, and worse, deeply out of touch with contemporary reality. Worldwide, nations are attempting to shift from fossil fuel consumption to renewable energy sources that do not further pollute the planet – and Trump encourages coal consumption. Environmental regulation is desperately needed to mitigate the effects of global warming and environmental pollution, but he guts the EPA. The US has lost enormous stature – and potential trade – as a consequence of pulling out of the TTP, handing China a wonderful opportunity to compete against the US. All of these farces have a common theme – Trump and his entourage are protected by their obscene wealth from having to deal with reality – and they clearly do not give a damn about anyone or anything else but themsaelves. Global civilization is becoming ever more complex, and in need of more effective management – but this ‘devil take the hindmost’ approach is grossly irresponsible. Even the truly impressive armada of US naval power demonstrated just recently plays directly into KJU’s hand – he can sit and twiddle his thumbs while the US spends countless millions – likely billions – of dollars per day projecting force that it cannot actually use, without grossly insulting humanity, and inviting retaliation by China and Russia. Then when it all settles down, and most of the fleet have left the area, KJU can just continue his nuclear weapon development, until the next round of sanctions and performing seals.
God forbid. I have to wonder whether Republicans are completely out of touch with reality… and why should everyone else and the planet have to pay for what looks like nothing more than crass stupidity? (Not that Democrats are that much better, but they do seem to try…)
Nov 17, 2017 at 5:15 am #3502569
- This reply was modified 2 months ago by Robert Meurant.
I’m going to have my 19th nervous breakdown right now: …3, 2, 1.Nov 17, 2017 at 5:18 am #3502570
Ken T.BPL Member
A pandemic and a volcanic eruption. Problems solved.
Elephants don’t vote or have money.Nov 17, 2017 at 5:48 am #3502573
jeffrey armbrusterBPL Member
@bookLocale: Northern California
Laurie Garrett’s The Coming Plague suggests that a pandemic is not out of the question. My dentist warns me about the coming plaque if I don’t floss more.
Elephants dancing on our graves has a certain justice to it.Nov 17, 2017 at 5:56 am #3502575
Mark FowlerBPL Member
The next denial topic – air pollution is not harmful to human health.Nov 17, 2017 at 5:57 am #3502576Nov 17, 2017 at 8:29 am #3502588
If the right honorable lady or gentleman would communicate the substance of her or his objection to the content of my previous post, I would be happy to review and repost it accordingly. The post was not intended to be taken in any way personally by any BPL member.
Also, I later realized Ken’s comment “Elephants don’t vote or have money” could be taken in two different ways. I think I interpreted correctly the first time, but if the less likely interpretation is that power justifies the political process (I think it unlikely that was actually his intention), I would then have to gently disagree. I consider many, perhaps most, of the problems we face today actually proceed from the political mentality, and as a species, we need to evolve beyond that (and bloody rapidly if we are to survive). Irrespective of the materialistically machinating and politically privileged prospering, the environment and the ecology are objectively being demeaned, disfigured, deteriorated, and every dire disaster beginning with d that could possibly be deucedly, dishandedly, and disingenuously demanded. Hence Jeffrey is quite remonstrably right (while being levitatingly left) to ascribe diabolic qualities to the profanely present indifferent incumbent of the abject administration, who delights in deliberative and de-liberalizing division, diversion, derision, and discord.Nov 17, 2017 at 2:28 pm #3502609
I could search for photos of Trump’s kids holding up animal body parts from Africa safaris they’ve been on. Like elephant trunk. They’re into killing large animals.
On the other hand, I have heard of preserves where they make enough money from hunters to pay for the preserve. If an animal isn’t endangered they can “harvest” some of them.Nov 17, 2017 at 8:33 pm #3502672
When it comes to the issue of cleaning up pollution, I’m about as bed wetting liberal as they come (and think we need to make some major changes).
Yet, some bigger picture perspective: About 13, 000 years ago, events (most likely asteroid impacts) happened to knock off (make extinct) about 75% of the large, land mammal species which then existed. There was a much greater diversity before those events, as compared to now. The amount of species that went extinct around this period, is greater than the same number of similar category of species now (land mammals over a hundred lbs). North America was hit particularly bad by these events. Certain parts of Africa seemed to have it easiest (relatively speaking), which is why a lot of the large land mammals species that we have in the world, are now concentrated in Africa.
In the ice core samples taken in Greenland, there was observed temperature oscillations of over 14 degrees F in the average temps from different years to years around some of these earlier periods.
There are various examples of huge mammals like wooly mammoths deep frozen within about a 10 hour period, so much so that the flowers, grass, and plants they had been eating, some 12, 000 to 13, 000 years later didn’t show signs of putrefaction within their stomachs. It’s estimated that the temps went from moderate temps, to -150 degrees F, within matter of minutes and hours (it would take about 10 hours of such extreme temps to deep freeze such a massive, warm blooded mammal).
Modern humans were alive then. They survived obviously. And we’re worried about a few degrees? What people talk about as “catastrophe” due to recent CO2 increase is a nice stroll in the park compared to some of these prior epochs. Every other few years, we’re finding more data and realizing that modern humans have gone through more of these truly catastrophic events/periods than previously thought.
Apparently folks missed the news that some of the top climate scientist teams recently came out and said not all recent warming is attributed to CO2 as much as we previously thought.
Crisis and catastrophe are intense, heavy words, with far reaching implications. Get some bigger picture, historical perspective and learn to use them accurately. We’ve been, even in the last couple centuries, in remarkably stable and favorable (for humans) climatic conditions for some 12, 000 years compared to the bigger picture/long term historical perspective. And during that time, it was during the “little ice ages” which tended to last around a half century or so, that humanity really suffered. We know this, because some of these happened after the first discovered writing.
The dark age and mass Euro plagues for example, coincided with such mini periods of global cooling. Clean up pollution PLEASE(!), but realize that the Earth and it’s climate is far more dynamic and constantly changing that many really understand or think about. Current data shows that there have been about 12 of these truly catastrophic and major climate change periods in the about 200, 000 years that modern humans have been around (rounding up slightly).
The sky is not falling yet, but it will be so obvious to everyone when it actually begins to again.Nov 19, 2017 at 3:47 am #3502855
“The amount of species that went extinct around this period, is greater than the same number of similar category of species now (land mammals over a hundred lbs)”
Correction: the above is an inaccurate statement–it was about equal to (not greater than). The amount of species that went extinct within a relatively short time period, was about 120.
Also to add, during this last 11, 000 to 12, 000 or so years of relative, unusual stability and favorable conditions for modern humans, we have seen warmer yearly global temps and periods than currently.
Greenland once had an agricultural area with people living there off of crops grown. England around that time had a completely natural (no gmo involved) grape/wine industry. It’s always been during the warmer periods that humans have thrived. What would absolutely cause major issues is some kind of longer term global cooling period. Whether from Solar grand minimum, major volcanic eruption, another asteroid/comet strike, etc it would cause humans major issues as compared to a slight increase in warming—particularly because of loss of crops (one of the main problems during previous mini ice ages).Nov 28, 2017 at 11:11 am #3504473
As regards bed wetting liberals, my understanding is that most sea-front land, at least in the developed nations, has already been acquired by the more materially successful right wing minded constituents, and they are the ones most likely, at least in developed countries, to experience bed wetting from sea level rise as a consequence of global warming.
As regards the comparison of future climatic conditions with the past, and the inference that we survived a few degrees variation and therefore ought to put future global warming into perspective, the flaw in this argument is that although past/future climatic variation might justifiably be compared, a moment’s reflection will observe that the human population has exploded from that of a few thousand years ago, and is no way comparable. Further, enormous numbers of the global population inhabit low-lying coastal areas – one need only consider the situation in Bangladesh. Sea level rise and worsening extreme climatic events can be expected to inflict ever-worsening devastation, and enormous suffering worldwide.
As I observed previously, we are rapidly entering an environmental crisis of immense proportions, and we need to face up to this and address it meaningfully. I see little evidence of this happening, at least within the current US administration and their supporters. Quite the reverse. Onwards to planetary extinction!Nov 28, 2017 at 12:13 pm #3504476
China takes economic hit as environment nears ‘point of no return’ * Daniel Shane, November 27, 2017.
Beijing wants to swap its polluted air for blue skies.
Doing so will be costly.
China has transformed over the past four decades from an economic backwater to an unrivaled industrial power that consumes huge amounts of raw materials and energy. The tremendous change has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but also polluted the country’s air and water.
“The environment is near the point of no return,” Alex Wolf, an economist at Aberdeen Standard Investments, said in a recent research note. China’s economy has long taken priority over other concerns. Local governments tasked with meeting ambitious growth targets have historically kept the furnaces burning at massive state-owned businesses even when there’s no demand for their products.
But Beijing recognizes that the situation is now dire. Air pollution killed more than 1.1 million people in China in 2015, the most in any country in the world, according to a study published this year by the U.S.-based Health Effects Institute…
Ref.: New Global Burden of Disease Study Finds Air Pollution the Leading Environmental Cause of Death Worldwide
92% of People Face Unsafe Air; More than 4.2 Million Early Deaths
Air pollution is the leading environmental cause of death worldwide according to the State of Global Air 2017, a new, first annual report and interactive website launched today at http://www.stateofglobalair.org. The report also finds that 92% of the world’s population lives in areas with unhealthy air. All told, long-term exposure to fine particulate matter– the most significant element of air pollution–contributed to 4.2 million premature deaths and to a loss of 103 million healthy years of life in 2015, making air pollution the 5th highest cause of death among all health risks, including smoking, diet, and high blood pressure. “We are seeing increasing air pollution problems worldwide, and this new report and website details why that air pollution is a major contributor to early death,” said Dan Greenbaum, President of the Health Effects Institute…
Nov 28, 2017 at 12:26 pm #3504479
- This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Robert Meurant.
These countries want to ditch gas and diesel cars,
by Alanna Petroff July 26, 2017
Politicians are racing to show the world how quickly their countries can go green.
India, France, Britain and Norway all want to completely ditch gas and diesel cars in favor of cleaner vehicles. At least 10 other countries have set sales targets for electric cars.
Britain: The U.K. said Wednesday that it would ban sales of new gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040 as part of a bid to clean up the country’s air. By 2050, all cars on the road will need to have zero emissions. “We can’t carry on with diesel and petrol cars,” U.K. environment secretary Michael Gove told the BBC. “There is no alternative to embracing new technology.”
France: The government announced earlier this month that it wants to end sales of gas and diesel-powered vehicles by 2040 as it fights global warming. After that date, automakers will only be allowed to sell cars that run on electricity or other cleaner power. Hybrid cars will also be permitted.
India: New Delhi said earlier this year that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030… India, which suffers from an especially acute air quality problem, is home to many of the world’s most polluted cities.
Norway: The government’s transportation plan outlines a clear target: All new passenger cars and vans sold in 2025 should be zero-emission vehicles. The country is considered a leader in this area. About 40% of all cars sold in the country last year were electric or hybrid vehicles.
The others: At least 10 other countries have electric car sales targets in place, according to the International Energy Agency.
Austria, China, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Korea and Spain have set official targets for electric car sales. The United States doesn’t have a federal policy, but at least eight states have set out goals.
China — which buys more cars than any other country — is also the largest electric car market. China accounts for more than 40% of the electric cars sold in the world and more than double the number sold in the U.S., according to the IEA.
The IEA report contains an alarming statistic that shows just how far many other countries have to go: Globally, 95% of electric cars are sold in only 10 countries: China, the U.S., Japan, Canada, Norway, the U.K., France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.Nov 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm #3504486
Ken T.BPL Member
Got my volcanic eruption.Nov 28, 2017 at 4:26 pm #3504508
“we are rapidly entering an environmental crisis of immense proportions, and we need to face up to this and address it meaningfully”
But what we have observed currently is small.
Maybe in Portland there are a few more days greater than 90 F, but it’s not clear this is because of the increased CO2.
Maybe it’s paradoxically been colder in the midwest (the polar vortex) which is maybe caused by increased CO2.
Maybe in the arctic there are major changes, like the amount of sea ice is much less which could make it difficult for polar bears. But I’ve never seen it so so what (/sarcasm)
There is consensus that CO2 has raised temperatures, but only on a statistical basis, just barely noticeable. There’s no consensus on just how bad this will eventually be. And I’ll be dead when this happens so who cares (/sarcasm)
I think we should currently take actions that are inexpensive, like subsidize solar energy so that now it’s actually cheaper than fossil fuels. Gradually increase efficiency, like car efficiency standards haven’t been a big imposition.
I think fracking is okay, because it’s produced a lot of cheap natural gas which is displacing coal.
I think we should develop breeder reactors which burn the U238 that is currently waste. They will be a solution to the nuclear waste problem, not a contributor. Design the reactors so they can be instantly shut down without creating a Fukashima. There are currently two U.S. companies developing this, but the U.S. won’t fund it but China is.Nov 28, 2017 at 4:27 pm #3504509
I wonder where Rog is?
He got frustrated and swore at me and at least one post was moderated, then crickets, maybe he’s been banned???Nov 30, 2017 at 12:07 am #3504726
“As regards the comparison of future climatic conditions with the past, and the inference that we survived a few degrees variation and therefore ought to put future global warming into perspective, the flaw in this argument is that although past/future climatic variation might justifiably be compared, a moment’s reflection will observe that the human population has exploded from that of a few thousand years ago, and is no way comparable.”
Still looking at the bigger picture somewhat myopically. There is suggestive evidence that prior to this 13, 000 year ago event which caused mass animal die offs and major climatic and geological changes, that there may have been relatively advanced and populous civilizations in existence.
The main evidence is found in that most older cultures of the world, they have records in the form of myths of these major changes AND many of them talk about past civilizations that were advanced compared to their own.
We ask for the hard proof—where’s the evidence we demand, but imagine this, something major happens to completely interrupt our civilization and devastate human population. In 13, 000 years from now, do you think there will be much evidence for our current civilization? If you let a mostly metal truck or airplane sit out for a long time with no upkeep, most of it will be gone in a few centuries via just rust/break down alone and it will be barely recognizable in a century or two. Then times that amount of time by a factor of 100. Not much but massive stone monuments would survive (hmmmm…).
Compound that with the fact that we know massive flooding took place as the glaciers melted, and that we know that the sea levels are some 500 feet above what they were then. As you mentioned, humans have a tendency to build and populate most around the coast. Most of these past civilizations are quite likely under a lot of water.
Then you have archaeological sites like Gobekli Teppe which shows clear signs of some sort of at least semi advanced civilization and a massive engineering project that would have taken a lot of people to do (suggesting a relatively large population with some free time). It’s anywhere from 10, 000 to 12, 000 years old, and since it came after the event(s) talked about earlier, it doesn’t even represent the climax of earlier civilizations, but a rebounding.
It also brings to bear an interesting point that I’ve wondered much about. Modern humans are some 200, 000 years old, with basically the same kind of brain, and we really think in our hubris and arrogance that it’s only been in the last couple hundred years that we have developed technology and civilization like currently? That’s not what some older cultures say. That’s not what the ancient Egyptian toy “bird” that is made much more like a plane (with a rudder) than a bird, indicates. Nor the Vedas and the flying machines, etc they talk about.
The reason why we don’t more clearly remember these past civilizations and peoples is because of this cyclic cycle of great change, destruction/transformation that seems to happen on a rough 11, 000 to 13, 000 or so year cycle. We’re constantly starting from scratch after building up civilization, technology and large populations.
“Further, enormous numbers of the global population inhabit low-lying coastal areas – one need only consider the situation in Bangladesh. Sea level rise and worsening extreme climatic events can be expected to inflict ever-worsening devastation, and enormous suffering worldwide.”
Did not say that there wasn’t cause for some concern, but rather, it’s not truly crisis and catastrophic at this point. Truly catastrophic would be the events that led to the die offs of many, many, many animals and severe climatic and geological changes some 13, 000 years ago.
Also, I don’t think human made C02 is the cause of all the warming. It’s certainly a factor, but I don’t think it’s the only variable. As I’ve pointed out a number of times before, there are other major Earth changes in the works currently that have nothing to do with humans–such as magnetic field changes, an overall trend towards greater frequency and intensity of Earthquakes, volcanic activity and other potential Core to crust energy transference over the last century or so (the magnetic field also happens to be intimately tied in with the dynamo of the Earth’s core…what a coinky dink that one).
It’s more than possible that whatever is causing changes in these other areas and fundamental processes and phenomena of the Earth, can also be contributing to climate changes as well. For example, say there is some kind of shift in the internal, independently rotating Earth core from the rest of the Earth, then over time this would lead to various other changes and build up.
The magnetic shield would start changing, Earth’s rotation might slow a little, and friction generated deep within the Earth would create greater heat, which would rise/expand eventually into the weaker crustal areas causing things like more and stronger earthquakes, more volcanic activity, and…wait for it….an increase in heat being vented, which might affect the global temps a bit over time.
You know, isn’t it mighty funny and coincidental that Edgar Cayce predicted all of the above back in the 1920’s and 30’s, and right on the dot as to the general timing of when these changes would start to become noticed? The future time frame that this work mentioned most, was the “testing” period from 1958 to 1998 when the beginnings of some of these building up changes would become to be noticed, as to a general trend of warming, greater geological activities like earthquakes etc showing the stresses building up.
He even specifically predicted a change in the cycle for the poles for around the start of the 21st Century (more specifically, “Q: What great change, if any, is to occur in the year of 2000 to 2001 A.D.? A: When the poles have shifted or a new cycle begins.”) Indeed, it was around the end of the 20th/beginning of the 21st that the magnetic pole wandering speed and field strength began to change MUCH faster. It went from a gradually increasing trend from the 1800’s, to a rocket ship of change right around the turn of the century. We knew very, very little about the magnetic field and polar shifting when Cayce talked about this stuff.
All this caused by what? Not by human pollution, but by an internal upheaval in the Earth that reportedly happened in 1936, which would gradually but increasingly lead up to bigger and bigger changes on all levels. But they also said, that even by 1998, this would be a gradual and not a cataclysmic development in the Earth (all this misinformation about how Cayce predicted the end of the world bs by 2000 etc, is either ignorance or misinformation).
Interestingly, we now surmise from scientific research that the Earth’s core is some 10 degrees off of orientation with Earth. Meaning true north of the internal core is not oriented to Polaris like the rest of the outer Earth and it’s true north is.
The only question is, was it always that way, or was Cayce’s source right that this was a relatively recent development and the true cause and source for all the changes we have been seeing for some 80+ years since?
Point of all this being? Don’t put all your eggs into one, narrow basket. Certainly humans are contributing to climate change, but are they truly the sole cause of all of it? You still somehow believe that when even the scientific teams that came up with THE model of climate change based on CO2 recently came out and said we were somewhat off in our estimations and predictions and that we cannot attribute all warming to only CO2, that they are now making an error after reviewing all the meta data?
Can’t have it both ways when listening to only the experts. And this not even mentioning all the other stuff going on with the Earth what we know has little to nothing to do with human activity. We’re NOT causing the changes in the magnetic field, we’re not causing the general increase and severity of earthquakes except by some minor quakes here and there facilitated by fracking, etc.
You want it cooler? You might get more than you bargained for.Nov 30, 2017 at 3:19 am #3504755
The world population was estimated to have reached 7.6 billion as of October 2017.
The United Nations estimates it will further increase to 11.2 billion by the year 2100.
Graph of the global human population from 10,000 BCE to 2000 CE, from the US Census Bureau. The graph shows the extremely rapid growth in the world population that has taken place since the 18th century.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.