How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?

[Zeitgeist]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 7:28 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Cite, unasked for:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-produce-more-garbage-than-anyone-else-1.1394020

So the WORST nation on earth gives itself a 'C' grade !  'C' for Canada, I presume.  Or 'C' for complacent, corrupt, culpable on climate change.

This is our shame.

Well Canada consumes energy at a higher rate to provide the same amenities we'd expect in any developed country, such as heat during winter.  It takes more energy to service sparsely populated areas in the north, for example, in a harsh winter.  Energy consumption is also higher in resource-based economies that do a lot of extraction, refining, etc.  The issue in most western countries isn't overpopulation, but rather population density.  We need to find the right ratios of people to land.  In many respects a higher population density makes many efficiencies possible, such as cheaper public transit and utility infrastructure (due to cost sharing among a greater number of inhabitants, etc.).  However, if the density is too high, pollutants in the water supply and air cannot be replenished quickly enough by the aquifers and carbon sinks (forests and underwater plants).  In broad strokes, the answer, in developed countries at least, is environmentally sound urban planning and sustainable building technology.  I don't think going to developing countries and trying to implement mass population control experiments would be well received, obviously.  Improving health, including access to contraceptives, and providing economic opportunities does tend to shrink the size of families.  We can do that kind of international development because the benefits are fairly universally understood. 

The point was astutely made that our expectations for how middle class and wealthy people should expect to live needs to change.  The wealthy and middle classes cannot continue to consume and produce waste at current levels.  Since most of us are not communists, fascists, or interested in some kind of extreme collectivist redistribution of wealth or resources, the way to fix these problems is largely through regulation (e.g. limits to emissions through measures such as cap and trade).  The big challenge for countries that try to do this is that some countries refuse to do this, all the more reason for having universal international agreements.  The bone of contention in laying out such agreements is the concessions that poorer developing countries seek as they try to grow their economies, but if we want to get anything done, we're going to have to accept a bit of this, just as we're going to have to accept that all the labour legislation in the world won't fully prevent some jurisdictions from having lower labour costs than others.  Some offshoring of manufacturing will continue.

One thing Canada can easily do as a measure to deal with the population density and goods/people distribution problem impacting the environment is incentivize moving to the north, so that small inefficient settlements that have to import most of their goods and services can become larger and more self-sustaining.  Using measures such as easing immigration for newcomers who are willing to live a minimum of say, five years, in the north as a faster track to citizenship, would be one way of reducing the environmental footprint in our busiest cities, creating efficiencies in smaller communities, as well as providing well-needed economic opportunities in depressed northern communities.  It would certainly go a long way to helping struggling indigenous communities.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Leon said:

1. Rubbish.   

2. Changing population growth is probably beyond our  ability.   For obvious reasons, it is hardwired into our DNA. 

3. The secular West certainly seems to be aiming at its own extinction which of course just means that the billions of religious cults such as Orthodox Jews, Christians, Fundamentalist Muslims and Hindus will continue to breed.

 

1. Yes, and lots of it.

2. Huh ?  How so ?  We have done it before with birth control and we could shrink our country by eliminating immigration.

3. That's not evident.   Cultural change comes to everyone... eventually.

 

[WestCanMan]

On 12/10/2017 at 10:56 AM, Robert Greene said:

Why are we spending billions on energy retrofit programs, climate change research, environmental consultants, and conservation, when we are spending next to nothing to slow down population growth? We're putting a lot of resources into energy efficiency, but all that goes to vain when we ignore rapid population growth. We can't allow ourselves to go beyond 10 Billion, or there will be severe consequences for our quality of life, and environment. We need a plan for humanity to survive at least another 1000 years, and ethical depopulation might be the solution.

Are we simply going to ignore the issue, and let countries like India and China get over 2 billion? How will future generations maintain a high quality of life, when the resources start to run out? What will the quality of life be like for them, when they can't get access to affordable food, housing and transportation? The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic. We are running out of farmland, and we don't need to watch the Amazon get destroyed, in order to make room for new farms.

By gradually reducing the World's populating, we could start to regrow forests outside cities, providing a beautiful landscape and recreation opportunities for future generations.

How do we proceed with aggressive action on overpopulation that will be ethical, and not interfere with humans rights?

I give you a picture of Mexico City, showing 16 Square kilometers, without a park or woodlot. How do we get nature back in a rapidly growing city?

 

When the Chinese had a one child policy a lot if people couldn’t wrap their heads around it. Some Chinese even tried to come here as refugees because they felt like their human rights were being violated. 

Eventually something will come along to curb the population if we don’t do it ourselves. It’s called the tragedy of the commons and it will result in plague, famine, war or some combination of the 3. 

 

[cannuck]

This IS the #1 problem in the world, but it is so seldom discussed as it requires some serious re-thinking about how "we" run the world.

Without an effective world government, it is left to the hopelessly ineffective UN to speak for the lot of us, and that doesn't seem to be likely.  Solve the governance thing first, THEN we can lick the population bomb.

[betsy]

On 12/10/2017 at 1:56 PM, Robert Greene said:

Why are we spending billions on energy retrofit programs, climate change research, environmental consultants, and conservation, when we are spending next to nothing to slow down population growth? We're putting a lot of resources into energy efficiency, but all that goes to vain when we ignore rapid population growth. We can't allow ourselves to go beyond 10 Billion, or there will be severe consequences for our quality of life, and environment. We need a plan for humanity to survive at least another 1000 years, and ethical depopulation might be the solution.

Are we simply going to ignore the issue, and let countries like India and China get over 2 billion? How will future generations maintain a high quality of life, when the resources start to run out? What will the quality of life be like for them, when they can't get access to affordable food, housing and transportation? The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic. We are running out of farmland, and we don't need to watch the Amazon get destroyed, in order to make room for new farms.

By gradually reducing the World's populating, we could start to regrow forests outside cities, providing a beautiful landscape and recreation opportunities for future generations.

How do we proceed with aggressive action on overpopulation that will be ethical, and not interfere with humans rights?

I give you a picture of Mexico City, showing 16 Square kilometers, without a park or woodlot. How do we get nature back in a rapidly growing city?

 

 

Government's promotion   of "right to die," along with legalization of assisted suicide, is one way.   Assisted suicide is cleverly disguised as compassion - but there's more to it than meets the eye.

Edited August 30, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

On 12/10/2017 at 6:10 PM, Ginsy said:

Two questions. I'm not that knowledgable on the this topic so I'd like to hear different perspectives, especially from people who know more than I do!

1. I forgot the theorists name, but in class we spoke about several different theories about population growth/decline, and one theorist proposed that population decline does not need to be a human effort because nature will take care of it. To what extent is this true? For example, he would make the claim that although the population may rise at one point in time, it will decrease in another because of natural disasters and such. I thought there might be a problem with this theory because although a natural disaster can kill a large number of people at time, do enough people actually die that it makes a statistical dent in world's entire population? (Not that they should or deserve to die!)

Nature did take care of that.   Not only through disasters and wars, but also through illness and life expectancy.  Advanced medicine has tampered with that.  We can fight off so many diseases now.  We can live longer.

[betsy]

On 12/10/2017 at 6:53 PM, Michael Hardner said:

 

Natural disasters will not be a major factor in reducing population, unless you are factoring in some kind of global climate catastrophe.

 

Maybe, there is a climate catastrophe that we can't control no matter what.  Maybe, earth gets to a certain number of people (over population), and that automatically reactivates it.

 

Migration can be another tool that automatically purges excess humans.  Diseases and plagues in a nation can easily get  to another.  Without advanced medicines, ebola (as an example ) would've wiped out so many.  Now we hear of "super bugs" that challenge our technology  - and it's possible a "super plague" could also be coming.

Edited August 30, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

On 12/15/2017 at 6:47 AM, Robert Greene said:

I have an ethical solution to overpopulation. Instead of sponsor a child, it's called "sponsor a vasectomy". The most racist thing we can do to the third world, is ignore it, and let them breed at unsustainable levels, while the globalist continue to exploit their endless supply of cheap labor. If $100 could pay for 50 vasectomies, i'd give that money in a heartbeat.

As third world populations start to stabilize, wages would start to go up, and their quality of life, and environment would improve.

I'd only have one condition, the vasectomy can only be performed after a fathers second child. We have to respect the dignity of a normal family size. I think that's an ethical compromise, that still encourages parenthood, at a reasonable level.

I would also refuse to pay a carbon tax to environmental scammers, until the agree to use that money to pay for ethical solutions to fight overpopulation. We shouldn't tolerate the hypocrisy.

Take this conversation to other forums. And sell the concept of "Ethical Depopulation" as a solution to the environment, climate change, and quality of life, for the world's citizens. Let's lobby for wide-scale vasectomies programs to be paid for by governments, and charities. Start a research pool, and get documentaries made. Demand that media cover this issue. Overpopulation is the number one cause of climate change, but their are ethical ways to slow it down. Do not compromise on political correctness, but be as ethical as possible.

If vasectomy isn't voluntary - it's a still a violation of human right.

We did the same kind of promotion to stop the spread of HIV in Africa -  I think the world even provided free condoms - is it working?

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

On 8/21/2018 at 11:43 AM, Leon said:

Rubbish.  Canada is a cold country with a sparse population and huge spaces between population centers. comm sense (lacking for the guilt ridden Left) should explain that.  

Changing population growth is probably beyond our  ability.   For obvious reasons, it is hardwired into our DNA. 

The secular West certainly seems to be aiming at its own extinction which of course just means that the billions of religious cults such as Orthodox Jews, Christians, Fundamentalist Muslims and Hindus will continue to breed.

In the long term (?) nature aka biology will take care of the problem - and it won't be pretty.

I'd say the attitude about sexual promiscuity is a factor too.   Look, we even have to come up with legalized abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, nature will do it for us.  Climate change could be the very thing to do it. Open borders makes it so feasible to wipe out so many with plagues  and incurable illnesses.  There are new bugs that pose a challenge to our technology.  There will always be something, I think.

Edited August 30, 2018 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/27/2018 at 10:14 PM, cannuck said:

Solve the governance thing first, THEN we can lick the population bomb.

Well, we are going the other way there.  There's a rise in populism of the kind that is suspicious of mass control, globalism and the like.  Setting aside the worth of those discussions, you are looking at a bigger and bigger problem to 'solve' governance.  I think the first step may actually be to design a system of public engagement that directs people towards problems that concern them, and away from things that do not.

[dialamah]

We don't have to do anything: world population growth is already slowing and will start decreasing within the next 50 years.

 according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.

Even if that doesn't happen, climate change will take care of practically everyone, human or otherwise.

The most notorious (mass extinction event) was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead.  We are currently adding carbon to the atmosphere at a considerably faster rate; by most estimates, at least ten times faster.

So, overpopulation is a worry we can dospense with.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We don't have to do anything: world population growth is already slowing and will start decreasing within the next 50 years.

 

 

Even if that doesn't happen, climate change will take care of practically everyone, human or otherwise.

 

 

So, overpopulation is a worry we can dospense with.

I don't think the decrease in population growth will come soon enough to prevent some very interesting times.

[turningrite]

On 8/30/2018 at 10:56 AM, bcsapper said:

I don't think the decrease in population growth will come soon enough to prevent some very interesting times.

I find this view overly pessimistic. It's become a form of neo-Malthusian ideology. The problem is that the initial Malthusian premise, which held that the world population of roughly one billion people and growing at the time would exert such a strain on resources, and particularly on food supply, that famine and disease would inevitably emerge to restore balance, didn't come to pass. Well, here we are about 200 years later and all indications are that human beings on average enjoy much longer lifespans, better nutrition and are less susceptible to disease than anyone in Malthus' time could have imagined. What happened? Technological and scientific progress. The new boogeyman is climate change. It's a problem, for sure, particularly for those who live at sea level. But the carbon age is slowly winding down, the population growth rate is declining and beyond mid-century many countries, including China, Russia, Germany, Japan, Spain and Brazil will experience actual population decline. The end is not nigh, at least not on account of overpopulation.

I won't be around at the end of this century but my guess is that unless the earth is in the meantime struck by a massive asteroid or depopulated by nuclear Armageddon human beings will still productively inhabit this planet.

Edited September 7, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, turningrite said:

I find this view overly pessimistic. It's become a form of neo-Malthusian ideology. The problem is that the initial Malthusian premise, which held that the world population of roughly one billion people and growing at the time would exert such a strain on resources, and particularly on food supply, that famine and disease would inevitably emerge to restore balance, didn't come to pass. Well, here we are about 200 years later and all indications are that human beings on average enjoy much longer lifespans, better nutrition and are less susceptible to disease than anyone in Malthus' time could have imagined. What happened? Technological and scientific progress. The new boogeyman is climate change. It's a problem, for sure, particularly for those who live at sea level. But the carbon age is slowly winding down, the population growth rate is declining and beyond mid-century many countries, including China, Russia, Germany, Japan, Spain and Brazil will experience actual population decline. The end is not nigh, at least not on account of overpopulation.

I won't be around at the end of this century but my guess is that unless the earth is in the meantime struck by a massive asteroid or depopulated by nuclear Armageddon human beings will still productively inhabit this planet.

As long as global annual average temperatures don’t get much more than 2 degrees higher.  Much higher than that, and particularly approaching 4 degrees higher, we are looking at a nightmare feedback loop wherein methane is released from melted poles, raising sea levels as by as much as 20 plus metres, making daily temperatures of 45 degrees typical in cities like New York, and rendering large swaths of Africa, Asia, the Americas and even Europe and Australia uninhabitable.  

[Guest]

14 hours ago, turningrite said:

I won't be around at the end of this century but my guess is that unless the earth is in the meantime struck by a massive asteroid or depopulated by nuclear Armageddon human beings will still productively inhabit this planet.

It'll make a change from destructively inhabiting it.

I like the asteroid idea...

[turningrite]

On 9/7/2018 at 8:54 PM, Zeitgeist said:

...rendering large swaths of Africa, Asia, the Americas and even Europe and Australia uninhabitable.  

That's a worst case scenario. But if it comes to pass it will also render large swaths of the Northern hemisphere, which due to climate are only marginally if at all inhabitable, fit for cultivation and human habitation.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

That's a worst case scenario. But if it comes to pass it will also render large swaths of the Northern hemisphere, which due to climate are only marginally if at all inhabitable, fit for cultivation and human habitation.

Yeah, but they aren't suddenly going to start sprouting wheat, oats and barley, and provide farming areas for livestock.  It will take time for those changes, and not a little long term commitment from governments not especially known for such things. 

[taxme]

On 9/7/2018 at 5:54 PM, Zeitgeist said:

As long as global annual average temperatures don’t get much more than 2 degrees higher.  Much higher than that, and particularly approaching 4 degrees higher, we are looking at a nightmare feedback loop wherein methane is released from melted poles, raising sea levels as by as much as 20 plus metres, making daily temperatures of 45 degrees typical in cities like New York, and rendering large swaths of Africa, Asia, the Americas and even Europe and Australia uninhabitable.  

Global warming has nothing to do with humans living on earth today. If anyone who is contributing to global warming it is India and China. Go after them, not me.

This melting of snow and ice has happened many times in the past. The earth survived and here we still are. Still bitching and moaning and whining every day about global warming. This is no doubt an act of nature and that is it. From some reports I have read, there is massive heat being built up under the glaciers from down under, not Australia, that is causing the glaciers to melt from the bottom and on up. Whether true or not, I do not know.

But I am not going to panic over nothing like you are who will no doubt be dead along with our children and grandchildren by then. But if you are concerned so much about ice melting and flooding the earth a few hundred years from now well then start to make sure that people in the future start to make plans for future generations to get a few hundred Noah's Ark started. LOL. 

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, taxme said:

Global warming has nothing to do with humans living on earth today. If anyone who is contributing to global warming it is India and China. Go after them, not me.

This melting of snow and ice has happened many times in the past. The earth survived and here we still are. Still bitching and moaning and whining every day about global warming. This is no doubt an act of nature and that is it. From some reports I have read, there is massive heat being built up under the glaciers from down under, not Australia, that is causing the glaciers to melt from the bottom and on up. Whether true or not, I do not know.

But I am not going to panic over nothing like you are who will no doubt be dead along with our children and grandchildren by then. But if you are concerned so much about ice melting and flooding the earth a few hundred years from now well then start to make sure that people in the future start to make plans for future generations to get a few hundred Noah's Ark started. LOL. 

.0001 of scientists agree with you, but you don't need to worry about science because your position is unscientific.  The majority of the hottest years on record were in the last decade.  From NASA:

Climate change: How do we know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO₂ has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

 

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20^th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.¹

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.² Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.³

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

---

Global temperature rise

• 

  The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.⁴ Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. ⁵

+ more

• 

  Earth’s vital signs: Global temperature

  An indicator of current global average temperature as measured by NASA; updated monthly.
• 

  Global Climate Change: Causes

  An overview of the greenhouse effect and other contributors to abrupt climate change.
• 

  Graphic: Global warming from 1880 to 2015

  A visualization of global temperature changes since 1880 based on NASA GISS data.

---

Warming oceans

• 

  The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.⁶

+ more

• 

  Climate Kids: What is happening in the ocean?

  An overview of the ocean’s role in climate change and how it stores and releases heat from the atmosphere.
• 

  Video: Oceans of climate change

  A lighthearted look at the effect of climate change on the world’s oceans and the heat capacity of water.
• 

  Article: Warming ocean causing most Antarctic ice shelf mass loss

  Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent's ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found.

---

Shrinking ice sheets

• 

  The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.⁷

   

  Image: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet

+ more

• 

  Vital Signs: Land Ice

  An indicator of the current volume and the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets using data from NASA’s Grace satellite.
• 

  Global Ice Viewer

  An interactive exploration of how global warming is affecting sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets world wide.

---

Glacial retreat

• 

  Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.⁸

   

  Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.

+ more

• 

  Interactive: Global ice viewer

  An interactive exploration of how global warming is affect sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets worldwide.

---

Decreased snow cover

• 

  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.⁹

+ more

• 

  National Snow and Ice Data Center

  As an information and referral center in support of polar and cryospheric research,NSIDC archives and distributes digital and analog snow, ice, and
• 

  Earth Observatory: Snow Cover

  Time series of global snow cover from NASA's Earth Observatory.

---

Sea level rise

• 

  Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.¹⁰

   

  Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

+ more

• 

  Earth’s vital signs: Sea Level

  An indicator of current global sea level as measured by satellites; updated monthly.
• 

  Quiz: Sea level

  Test your knowledge of sea level rise with this interactive quiz.

---

Declining Arctic sea ice

• 

  Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.¹¹

   

  Image: Visualization of the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, the lowest on record

+ more

• 

  Earth’s vital signs: Sea ice

  An indicator of changes in the Arctic sea ice minimum over time. Arctic sea ice extent both affects and is affected by global climate change.
• 

  Interactive: Global ice viewer

  An interactive exploration of how global warming is affecting sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets worldwide.
• 

  NASA’s Operation Icebridge mission

  NASA’s Operation IceBridge images Earth's polar ice in unprecedented detail to better understand processes that connect the polar regions with the global climate system.

---

Extreme events

• 

  The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.¹²

+ more

• 

  Precipitation Measurement Missions

  The official website for NASA's fleet of Earth science missions that study rainfall and other types precipitation around the globe.
• 

  Precipitation Quiz

  Earth’s water is stored in ice and snow, lakes and rivers, the atmosphere and the oceans. How much do you know about how water is cycled around our planet and the crucial role it plays in our climate?

---

Ocean acidification

• 

  Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.^13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.^15,16

+ more

• 

  How does climate change affect coral reefs?

  Article about how global warming leads to coral bleaching and changes ocean chemistry, leading to acidification.
• 

  The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem

  NOAA page on ocean acidification.

---

References

1. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

   B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

   Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

   V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

   B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

2. In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

3. National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
   
   http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

4. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

   http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

5. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/

6. Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

7. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7159

8. National Snow and Ice Data Center

   World Glacier Monitoring Service

9. National Snow and Ice Data Center

   C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504

   http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html

   Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.

10. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
    
    Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

    The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

11. L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

    R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

    http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

12. "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," National Academies Press, 2016
    https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1
    
    Kunkel, K. et al, "Probable maximum precipitation and climate change," Geophysical Research Letters, (12 April 2013) DOI: 10.1002/grl.50334
    
    Kunkel, K. et al, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012.
    
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

13. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

14. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

15. C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

16. Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

.0001 of scientists agree with you, but you don't need to worry about science because your position is unscientific.  The majority of the hottest years on record were in the last decade. 

 

Nevertheless, the earth's climate has been much hotter (and cooler) before modern record keeping.  

 

Quote

From NASA:

 

But NASA, NOAA, and NSIDC are....American.   Can't trust those "bullies"  (unless it supports an agenda, right ?).

....but we do have the best "climate change" porn.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nevertheless, the earth's climate has been much hotter (and cooler) before modern record keeping.  

 

 

But NASA, NOAA, and NSIDC are....American.   Can't trust those "bullies"  (unless it supports an agenda, right ?).

....but we do have the best "climate change" porn.

 

Yes and when it was much hotter there were no humans.  I don't care which bloody country the scientists come from.  Not everything is nationalistic.  Nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes and when it was much hotter there were no humans.  I don't care which bloody country the scientists come from.  Not everything is nationalistic.  Nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

 

... and yet, you have posted a very different sentiment in other threads, to wit:

 

Quote

And Canadians will say, "Fuck you!"

 

The earth's human population has grown quickly with "climate change" (correlation, not cause)....population has not been diminished.

[taxme]

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

.0001 of scientists agree with you, but you don't need to worry about science because your position is unscientific.  The majority of the hottest years on record were in the last decade.  From NASA:

Climate change: How do we know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO₂ has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

 

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20^th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.¹

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.² Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.³

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

---

Global temperature rise

• 

  The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.⁴ Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. ⁵

+ more

• 

  Earth’s vital signs: Global temperature

  An indicator of current global average temperature as measured by NASA; updated monthly.
• 

  Global Climate Change: Causes

  An overview of the greenhouse effect and other contributors to abrupt climate change.
• 

  Graphic: Global warming from 1880 to 2015

  A visualization of global temperature changes since 1880 based on NASA GISS data.

---

Warming oceans

• 

  The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.⁶

+ more

• 

  Climate Kids: What is happening in the ocean?

  An overview of the ocean’s role in climate change and how it stores and releases heat from the atmosphere.
• 

  Video: Oceans of climate change

  A lighthearted look at the effect of climate change on the world’s oceans and the heat capacity of water.
• 

  Article: Warming ocean causing most Antarctic ice shelf mass loss

  Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent's ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found.

---

Shrinking ice sheets

• 

  The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.⁷

   

  Image: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet

+ more

• 

  Vital Signs: Land Ice

  An indicator of the current volume and the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets using data from NASA’s Grace satellite.
• 

  Global Ice Viewer

  An interactive exploration of how global warming is affecting sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets world wide.

---

Glacial retreat

• 

  Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.⁸

   

  Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.

+ more

• 

  Interactive: Global ice viewer

  An interactive exploration of how global warming is affect sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets worldwide.

---

Decreased snow cover

• 

  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.⁹

+ more

• 

  National Snow and Ice Data Center

  As an information and referral center in support of polar and cryospheric research,NSIDC archives and distributes digital and analog snow, ice, and
• 

  Earth Observatory: Snow Cover

  Time series of global snow cover from NASA's Earth Observatory.

---

Sea level rise

• 

  Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.¹⁰

   

  Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

+ more

• 

  Earth’s vital signs: Sea Level

  An indicator of current global sea level as measured by satellites; updated monthly.
• 

  Quiz: Sea level

  Test your knowledge of sea level rise with this interactive quiz.

---

Declining Arctic sea ice

• 

  Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.¹¹

   

  Image: Visualization of the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, the lowest on record

+ more

• 

  Earth’s vital signs: Sea ice

  An indicator of changes in the Arctic sea ice minimum over time. Arctic sea ice extent both affects and is affected by global climate change.
• 

  Interactive: Global ice viewer

  An interactive exploration of how global warming is affecting sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets worldwide.
• 

  NASA’s Operation Icebridge mission

  NASA’s Operation IceBridge images Earth's polar ice in unprecedented detail to better understand processes that connect the polar regions with the global climate system.

---

Extreme events

• 

  The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.¹²

+ more

• 

  Precipitation Measurement Missions

  The official website for NASA's fleet of Earth science missions that study rainfall and other types precipitation around the globe.
• 

  Precipitation Quiz

  Earth’s water is stored in ice and snow, lakes and rivers, the atmosphere and the oceans. How much do you know about how water is cycled around our planet and the crucial role it plays in our climate?

---

Ocean acidification

• 

  Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.^13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.^15,16

+ more

• 

  How does climate change affect coral reefs?

  Article about how global warming leads to coral bleaching and changes ocean chemistry, leading to acidification.
• 

  The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem

  NOAA page on ocean acidification.

---

References

1. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

   B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

   Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

   V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

   B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

2. In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

3. National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
   
   http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

4. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

   http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

5. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/

6. Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

7. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7159

8. National Snow and Ice Data Center

   World Glacier Monitoring Service

9. National Snow and Ice Data Center

   C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504

   http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html

   Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.

10. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
    
    Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

    The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

11. L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

    R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

    http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

12. "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," National Academies Press, 2016
    https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1
    
    Kunkel, K. et al, "Probable maximum precipitation and climate change," Geophysical Research Letters, (12 April 2013) DOI: 10.1002/grl.50334
    
    Kunkel, K. et al, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012.
    
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/

13. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

14. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

15. C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

16. Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

 

 

I can see that you are in a panic here but I do not understand as to why you are? If the earths temperature has only risen by 1.62F since the late 19th century why the panic. So, today in the Arctic the temperature is 40 below zero but thanks to this recent rise in temperature that you pointed out it will now be 48 below zero today. Wow, take off those mukluks and put your swimming trunks on. Whew, it's hot today. LOL. The 650,000 years of glacial advance and retreat has been happening long before man ever came along. Chill out, fella. 

All I now want to say to you is that if you are so concerned about global warming then what are you personally going to do about it? Are you willing to give up living in your home, driving a car or take the bus? Are you ready and willing to give up everything that surrounds you now and go live in the bush to help save the planet? Probably not, because I think that you like to talk the talk but will never do the walk. Am I right or not? Over to you.

I enjoy living in the 21st century and do enjoy all the technology that has been invented to make my life nice and cozy in my home in winter time. If the temperature has only risen by 1.62F I am certainly not going to panic about global warming just yet. From my window I can see Mount Baker in Washington State and when I see that all the ice and snow has all melted off that mountain then I will agree that we must have really warmed up a touch or two. But until that. 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by taxme

[taxme]

15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nevertheless, the earth's climate has been much hotter (and cooler) before modern record keeping.  

 

 

But NASA, NOAA, and NSIDC are....American.   Can't trust those "bullies"  (unless it supports an agenda, right ?).

....but we do have the best "climate change" porn.

 

It's all Trumps fault. LOL.  

[Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, taxme said:

It's all Trumps fault. LOL.  

In part, yes.  The U.S. economy influences international policy.  It can be used for good or evil.  Progress or regression.  Not supporting a major climate change agreement with everything we know about the impact of greenhouse gasses is reckless in the extreme, darn right inimical.