This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Interstellar? Scientist Warns Earth Is Now Halfway To Being Inhospitable
"The planet has been our best friend by buffering our actions and showing its resilience, but for the first time ever," warns Swedish environmental professor Johan Rockstrom, "we might shift the planet from friend to foe." As RT notes, Rockstrom explains there are nine "planetary boundaries" in a new paper published in Science – and human beings have already crossed four of them.
Environmental science professor Johan Rockstrom, the executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre in Sweden, argues that there are nine “planetary boundaries” in a new paper published in Science – and human beings have already crossed four of them.
Those nine include carbon dioxide concentrations, maintaining biodiversity at 90 percent, the use of nitrogen and phosphorous, maintaining 75 percent of original forests, aerosol emissions, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, fresh water use and the dumping of pollutants.
...
Rockstrom’s planetary boundary theory was first conceived in 2007. His new paper reveals that because of climate stability, which began when the Ice Age ended 11,000 years ago, a planetary calm helped our ancestors to cultivate wheat, domesticate animals, and launch industrial and communications revolutions. But those advances have strained the stability of the planet, and Rockstrom says we have broken four boundaries: too much nitrogen has been added to ecosystems, too many forests have been cut down, the climate is changing too quickly and species are going extinct at too great a rate.
Speaking to RT’s Ben Swann, Professor of Ethics Bron Taylor from the University of Florida said that we have accelerated the extinction crisis through deforestation and ocean acidification, a development which is driving species to extinction.
“[Human] beings have increased, even from 1925, from 2 billion – which is considered to be a sustainable population for human beings, according to northern European consumption standards – to 7.2 billion at this point,” he said.
Where's Matthew McConaughey when we need him?
- 55226 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Yeah yeah yeah, more Fear Porn, this time on the Global Fuckup Meme...
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-...
WWGD ?
What Would George Do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4&list=PLD81254A770CDDF95
Let me guess, someone wants a grant and someone else wants a puppet to forward an agenda?
And maybe someone wants an excuse to slaughter 5 billion people?
The Eugenics movement of the early 20th century comes to mind. Look what that led to.
Ugly bags of mostly water will cease to exist.
I stopped reading after "CO2" concentrations...
Why waste your time "denying" stupidity when you can simply ignore it. Well played.
LOL, man and his hubris thinking he can kill the earth.
"From friend to foe." I guess the only acceptable gubbamin response is to declare War on Earth?
If you piled everybody on earth into the grand Canyon it wouldn't even fill it up half way.....just saying
Couldn't fit all their garbage in there though.
Average person in the developed world produces about 3/4 ton per year.
That's a LOT of garbage.
Given the current rate of waste generation and excluding future future technological advances, waste generated for the next 1000 years would be about 10 cubic miles.
it's not any of those things on his list.
The fucking problem first and foremost are the fucking sociopathic, treasonous, parasitic politicians and their puppet master bankster overlords.
I think monitorings most of the spicies is tricky. Big mammals I believe it but, bettles, fungi, etc...
The system is too complex for humans to understand.
The BLS and Wall Street analysts would be grateful for some of that "Global warming" over the last two NE winters? Sorry, of course, for which reason it is no longer politically correct to talk about "Global warming" (Since that hasn't actually happened) but "Climate change" which is much harder to pin down...
Embrace change as is the only constant. (Heraclitus)
"Climate change" is part of that constant. That's why the crafty boys/dames changed it from "Global warming"
Cannot argue against it.
7 contradicts 1
Uh.... plants like CO2 to be AT LEAST 280-300PPM to support that little thing called the "food chain". I hear it's kind of important. Plants are much happier with over 1000PPM of atmospheric CO2. This would also affect biodiversity wouldn't it, hmm...
Also, CO2 STOPS raising average temperature by any significant amount as it rises above 180PPM. So, good evidence suggests that CO2 IS NOT AN environmental ISSUE right and should be left alone, geddit?
His new paper reveals that because of climate stability, which began when the Ice Age ended 11,000 years ago,
Lulz, these people are beyond parody. Since the last enormous change in the climate, we haven't had any enormous changes in the climate?
Wow, give that man a PhD.
As a Swedish Environmentalist, the man don't need no steenkin' PhD.
The BLS and Wall Street analysts would be grateful for some of that "Global warming" over the last two NE winters? Sorry, of course, for which reason it is no longer politically correct to talk about "Global warming" (Since that hasn't actually happened) but "Climate change" which is much harder to pin down...
Fractally wrong...
Repeating it only makes it worse....
Ah, she's back!
Looking forward to watching you get eaten alive by your betters here.
What we do truly do know is that you sure the fuck ain't one of them...
"Fractally wrong...Repeating it only makes it worse...."
Yes, aplogies for the duplicate post, due to an internet connection error and some days ZH allows no time to edit. Regarding the facts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/record-global-temperatureconflicti...
So I guess, stick to your models and let's await the outcome of the investigation into the falsification of temperature records to "Prove" Global warming. Oops, there I go again, I meant "Climate change".
Incidentally, I assume you meant to say "Factually" and not "Fractally" unless you wanted to bring fracking into the debate as well?
Fractally wrong...
You are one that appears to have no idea what they are talking about...
What's up bitch?
And you are a pathetic dickweed with no sense of humor. Tell you what, I'll see your fractal and raise you five? But if you still wish to be humorless and pedantic, the recognised dictionaries doi not recognise the word "Fractally". You would need to resort to an Urban dictionary, similar to Global warming I guess?
Raw data please? Be prepared to show your work, including collection methodologies and timelines. Thx in advance.
It is all here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/
Sorry, nope CO2 is not a force driver. That ttheory doesn't work out.
Someone must have shook the stupid stick, look at what just showed up...
Of all the dumb fucks here, you have demonstrated that you have no peers...
^^ This! From an atheist! One day you'll discover you're not actually an atheist, but simply agnostic. (You did say you're an atheist, no?) I apologize if I am mistaken.
Anyway, I figure the system is too complex to have knowledge of, and is run by an entity much greater than I. I call that entity God.
God might be a person, but I don't think it likely. To me, it's probably more like an operating system (think Windows) that is and has been very accomodating and very capable of intuitive adaptation.
Do I know how it all works? Fuck no! Do I accept ((understand) (tricky word that)) it? Fuck yes! Evidence abounds.
K, so I understand (stand under) God because I am part of that, but I have no friggin' idea of what God wants or even if he/she/it wants anything at all.
Oh, btw, I don't think we need to go to some edifice, and listen to another human, to find God.
We were born into It, and we're too stupid (by and large) to realize that.
We who want to be led are our own worst enemy.
Peace out!
Yes, as soon as we drop out the billions of pounds of excess overcapacity of material supply that has resulted from 30 years of globalization, megamergers, and infinite amounts of fiat credit creation, we'll be just fine.
No, that is a lot of mass and energy. Humans are creative.
<<That's a LOT of garbage.>>
Where I live, the obedient sheeple wash and fold paper, plastic and metal. They place it neatly at the curb so that some silly-civil-servant can pick it up under the guise of the recycling fad. The do-gooders feel good about themselves and the crony-environmental-capitalists sell it to the Chinese who burn it.
The bums are willing to do this collection for free. Yet, the crony-bureaucrats outlaw picking through the trash.
We did that a long time ago. . .
The assertion is not that man can kill the earth, but rather that man can render the earth uninhabitable for man. And of course we can - consider nuclear fission.
We know that man can change the climate. Filling of the Three Gorges Dam in China changed the local climate. Any significant urban area enjoys a higher ambient temperature than its hinterland.
We have been felling forests for the past 10,000 years with increasing speed. We are converting energy stored over millions of years and releasing it as heat into our environment within a timespan of 200 years.
The climate is changing. Once-moist areas are experiencing reduced rainfall. Reduced snowfall in mountains. The Arctic ice pack is melting, recognised by the USN. That our climate is changing is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality. The question that is difficult to answer, and the only question subject to informed debate, is to what extent anthropomorphic climate change is responsible for the total change we observe.
To suggest as some do here that anthropomorphic climate change is no more than fearmongering is to exhibit the same tunnel vision they criticise in others on subjects financial & economic - hypocrasy in action.
Everything you claim to be "not in dispute," IS IN DISPUTE!
Start with this: Global Warming / Climate Change / whatever the fuck they call it next is a farce and a fraud. Even the ecocrazies who support this garbage know that the evidence has been falsified. NOAA and NASA are being called to task for their part in falsifying data to this end as well.
By the way, it's "hypocrisy."
Have you heard of the term "ice age"? If so, you must therefore accept that climate changes. This cannot be in dispute unless your head is buried so deep climate longer affects your experience. You may choose to believe the climate does not change, but that does not stop it changing.
The other matter I stated was not in dispute was that anthropomorphic climate change does exist (mans actions influence climate). If that is recognised on the micro level, AND IT IS, then by extension it must affect the macro. The only question to be determined is by how much?
Now, you may froth at the mouth and declare all who propose a hypothesis you don't agree with are crazy, but that is the sort of closed mindedness that results in self-deception, denial, and the suppression of enquiry.
Personally I prefer that people keep asking questions and scientists continue seeking answers. There are too many people prefer to abuse and belittle those with an alternative view/perception/hypothesis, rather attempt to understand the other position, question their own assumptions and actually learn something. No, its easier for everything to painted as black and white, this or that, mutually exclusive positions on everything. Welcome to the world of ignorance.
Have you heard the term "murder" ? How about "scientific fraud" ? I have a question for you, how many people have died because DDT was banned?
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
How about welcome to the world of eco-murder.
Grimaldus
And just what does this have to do with the argument at hand?
"Welcome to the world of ignorance."
How's the weather in that world?
Your weak link is: this is Earth. (H/T Steve Oedekerk.)
In your haste to drop more condescending ad hominem and other attacks against those of us who see things as they really are, you ignored my point completely. Nobody is saying that the Earth does not experience naturally occurring temperature swings, ice ages and such. This is a truly pathetic straw man argument. The fact that you trotted this out signals that you are a weak-minded useful idiot (H/T Vladmir Lenin) of the fearmongering left.
Nor is anyone arguing that microcosmic pollution centers do not exist in places such as New Dehli, Beijing, and Los Angeles. However, your claim that, "by extension it must affect the macro," is absurd because the vastness and ecodiversity of that "macro." This is why the CO2 arguments are ridiculous, the deforestation arguments are ridiculous, and the ozone layer over Antarctica arguments are ridiculous.
While I doubt I'll get a serious answer from someone enslaved by leftist ideology, and who cannot even begin to engage in critical thinking due to the powerful influence of highbrow leftist groupthink, I'll repeat this one more time, for the sake of others here who might be influenced.
I wrote earlier: "Global Warming / Climate Change / whatever the fuck they call it next is a farce and a fraud. Even the ecocrazies who support this garbage know that the evidence has been falsified. NOAA and NASA are being called to task for their part in falsifying data to this end as well."
The so-called "evidence" that underlies the Global Warming/Climate Change scammers' claims has been falsified! For years! The fact that this does not concern GW/CC proponents should get the attention of every donor and potential donor to this misguided cause.
I see your difficulty. Now, stop foaming at the mouth for a couple of minutes, put aside your assumptions as to what I believe, and READ what I wrote. I find this happens alot - a dispassionate comment is interpreted by people through the lens of their own preconceptions.
You agree that man affects the climate on a micro level, and dont disagree that it affects the macro, but rather you assert that the effect is negligible. That may be so.
I wrote that the key question to be answered is the degree to which man changes the macro climate. Perhaps the impact is negligible, perhaps it is significant.
I do not believe the question is answered yet. There are many posts here making assumptions and assertions, but where is the evidence either way? Its a difficult hypothesis to prove or disprove, but I would rather people continued to enquire and seek to answer it.
Some cynics say it is all about attracting more funding. For some, maybe. But that happens throughout modern science. Do we shut down enquiry because of a couple of dubious individuals? Or do we keep asking questions? In asking this question, the research will no doubt incidentally answer others - thats how science works.
So keep on asking and looking.
You see my difficulty, huh? You can't see anything. You are blinded by the addiction to highbrow progressive elitism. You literally cannot think for yourself because, in your mind, you don't have to - those who don't see the world in exactly the way you and other liberals do are regarded as inferior or defective, who harbor opinions and ideas that are not worthy of consideration. Like all liberals, you are suffering from a form of spiritual/moral sickness, and one of the unfortunate symptoms of this sickness is the inability to recognize it in oneself. I'll admit I was tempted by this outlook when I was much younger. Breaking out of the leftist Matrix is hard. I'd recommend you start by reading Dostoyevsky; but that's just where I started.
Take a good look at this thread. You initially wrote, in relevant part, "Once-moist areas are experiencing reduced rainfall. Reduced snowfall in mountains. The Arctic ice pack is melting, recognised by the USN. That our climate is changing is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality." Every one of these claims has either been shown to be an outright fabrication, highly dubious conjecture, or a misleading characterization of something innocuous. But you use these claims as if they are fact, to set up this statement: "The question that is difficult to answer, and the only question subject to informed debate, is to what extent anthropomorphic climate change is responsible for the total change we observe."This is deliberately deceptive argumentation, as I pointed out, more or less.
Then, you wrote, "To suggest as some do here that anthropomorphic climate change is no more than fearmongering is to exhibit the same tunnel vision they criticise in others on subjects financial & economic - hypocrasy [sic] in action." No surprise there, typical ad hominem accusation of close-mindedness perfected by Western liberals. That's like calling someone "racist." Puts the opponent on the defensive. Silences dissent.
Now that I've countered your premeses, you offer this, "I wrote that the key question to be answered is the degree to which man changes the macro climate. Perhaps the impact is negligible, perhaps it is significant." Do you not realize that you've completely evaded the issue? Your premeses are flawed! We don't need to ask this "key question" at all, because the question is as absurd as the question "Does the facial expression of the Man on the Moon affect tides?"
You talk about modern science as if you read about it in a book. Most scientific experimentation involves postulating an experimental hypothesis, testing it, seeing if fail, and defaulting to the null. This is what should have happened as soon as the data failed to support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. But it didn't. Why not? It doesn't take a very creative mind to ask the question, "Cui bono?" Doing so is not cynicism.
Only stupid dipshits don't acknowledge that we are changing the climate. You are arguing about beuacratic semantics while scientists argue that human behavior causes measurable signicficant damage. Humans need to change their behavior or we will soon render this planent uninhabitable for our species. Even the most degenerate primitives realize you don't shit where you eat. Anybody who argues that the dinner plate is a good shit collecting device is fucking moron and deserves any ridicule they get.
Stupid dipshit. Fucking moron. Got it. Thanks for your contribution to the thread.
The problem is, if someone claims to be worried about the destruction of nature and the foundations of life on our planet, which every intelligent person should be IMO, but if he is claiming that taxing the air and making it tradeable while collecting CO2 and pumping it into the earth was the solution, while he ignores the fact, that the economy needs to grow year after year and that a tiny dip in economic activity of 3% already pushes the whole world's economic activity and financial system to an abyss, and politicians quickly hand out free money to destroy good cars so more newer cars are bought, then this person at least has understood nothing or worse, probably cannot be trusted and is following an agenda which goal is NOT to solve problems, but probably to make money from them! And sometimes even more money can be made, by creating even more problems, while claiming to solve them.
I personally don't think that CO2 can be a problem, but I know that if everyone is using more and more resources each year and our species is exploding, then this has to degrade what remains untouched for nature and for the animals.
But most doubters about climate-change being manmade fall victim to binary thinking (being successful in the markets I have learnt to overcome it): people believe, if it's a hoax, there can be no danger from climate change.
What they do not seem to understand, that they are among the last in the food chain and the 1% is on top. It's a lie that all were suffering the same. The 1% suffers the least and they will have enough drinking water for their swimming pools, when the ZH-sheeple will only be able to pay a few liters per day. One is amazed, how great life for rich people in Bangladesh can be.
It's the same with the public schools: the 1% is not affected by the dumbing down of the masses, they have private schools or teachers. The 1% is also not affected by the genetic food garbage. They have their organic food producers and easily can pay them 5 $ per kg potatoes.
The Hegellian dialectic: PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION.
Create the problem - wiat for the reaction - offer the solution.
In the above mentioned context it could be seen that way:
Create compound interest based money that enforces exponential economic growth and debt - wait until the devastation of nature begins to show up - sell the fear to the sheeple to make even more money from the problem, for example by pushing taxation of air, making air tradeable, pushing the CO2 agenda, pushing global governance, while keeping the REAL PROBLEM, what interest based money leads to, out of any discussion.
Therefore I can only warn EVERYONE who is concerned and sees how unsustainable our throw-away-society is, to fall victim to those, who claim that CO2 reduction or building windmills could be a solution but ignore the fact, that interest based money needs growth year after year, to keep the shit from collapsing!
Any solution can only be found, by IDENTIFYING the FORCE BEHIND EXPONENTIAL GROWTH, start a discussion about this main problem and finally remove this force from economic activity.
Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
What you are talking about is a fundamental problem. I see it as bigger than just economic though. We need to drill back down to how we want society to be structured and how it shall operate.
We (currently) have limited resources. To lift all boats in the EM and under-developed economies I suspect is not possible without some of us giving something up. It is too big to discuss here, but briefly, how do we encourage entrepreneurship, scientific enquiry, and yet maintain a degree of equality and sense of self worth and participation amongst all of societies members? And at the same time manage our resources in an efficient manner?
The economic structure we employ is an extension and expression of the society we build. When we are so fragmented as societies, how can we as a global species coordinate and manage what we have?
Or do we give up and say its every man for himself, pure unfettered capitalism? I have no idea. What I do know is that in the past we had occasional resets, the agencies being war or disease or famine.
I do agree - issues of environmental impact and resource depletion are symptoms of our economic model, how it is governed, and how we weight our values. Do we address the symptoms, or the causes?
This socialistic utopianism is a major driver of the global warming scam. People like Popeye here SERIOUSLY believe that there's such a thing as a "global species," or "global society," and believe in the patently false notion that "we" were all created equal. To countermand these heresies would require the undoing of 300 years of post-Enlightenment countercultural liberalism; and that's too much to tackle here. But suffice it to say that the cure for capitalistic abuses is not the far worse "solution" of globally imposed socialism.
We need to drop the labels. Almost every American has been conditioned to run a mile at the hint of the word socialism - its a curious phenomenon.
You & I probably look very similar. And yet, if we spent some time in conversation it would become apparent we have quite different ways of thinking and behaving - it is more than just a different perspective. These differences I believe are deeply conditioned by our societies, and they are one reason homo sapiens (yes, its a species that is distributed globally) will remain divided.
You misunderstand me I think. I do not desire one government, or one society - I prefer diversity. I do believe an advanced society should look after its own. I also believe in self-help. I ponder on how that can be achieved in a manner that rewards effort and risk and enquiry, particularly when work opportunities are skewed against some portions of society.
You disagree with this line of thinking? Fine, thats your right, but your preference is not necessarily more or less valid than mine. So yes, we are born equal as individuals. Some are born into fortunate circumstances, and some not. Does your fortunate environment, for which you are not responsible, make you "better" than others? That sounds rather elitist to me.
More of the same.
First, you wrote, "To lift all boats in the EM and under-developed economies I suspect is not possible without some of us giving something up. It is too big to discuss here, but briefly, how do we encourage entrepreneurship, scientific enquiry, and yet maintain a degree of equality and sense of self worth and participation amongst all of societies members?"
This is the very definition of socialism. Taking from those that have, by force, to give to those who have less.
Now that you've been challenged for spouting off nonsense, it's, "You misunderstand me I think. I do not desire one government, or one society...." Do you not realize that you've just done a 180?
Then, wanting to eat your cake and have it too, you do another 180.
Claiming that because we're all homo sapiens within a discussion of government intervention to encourage entrepreneurship, leveling the playing field, helping East Asscrackistani women break through the glass ceiling, etc. is like a jeweler telling a customer, "Well, they're all rocks, after all; we charge the same whether it's a diamond or an emerald: it's only fair. After all, diamonds and emeralds are all born equal."
Bollocks. In the history of mankind, no two people have ever been "born equal." And I don't just mean socio-economic status either, but IQ, ethnicity, etc. Again, check your premeses.
I am very surprised you have read Dosteyevsky when you display this level of reading comprehension.
My comments are not inconsistent, it is your interpretation of them that is confounding you. I have attempted to limit my replies to rational discussion, but you respond with rants. Enough.
I accept your unconditional surrender.
No you retard, he is arguing that people are damaging and destroying the very system supports them. And it isnt very enlightened to destroy where you live. It's worth losing 7 centuries of western thinking because it has led us to our own extinction.
We're not destroying the very system that supports us. Have you read nothing in this thread? Check your premeses!
You said "moist." LULZ
"LOL, man and his hubris thinking he can kill the earth."
We can not kill earth, but we can change her until it kills us.
Minor changes will be enough, nature takes care of the rest.
The author of this report above forgets a few things, like rising ocean temperatures for example.
This is could do things like change ocean currents, resulting in very interesting weather changes.
This is already changing the behavior of fishing stocks in the north. New ones are coming from the south and old types deteriorating. Some types are changing their behavior, this makes it more difficult for the fishing fleet to find them as they are no longer as predictable as before.
Well, we managed to invent plutonium. And that CAN kill all life on earth as we know it.
Publicus
"Mother" nature=no such thing. Natural forces rule all with no favorites; we're gnats and expandable.
welcome back FLAK..hope your ego has healed from the ass whipping you got here months ago. keep posting (wrongheadedness) it is safe. now if only we could get Francis S back, and many others..lest we become an ecco chamber.
If you think I left because of "a whipping" you are completely deluded...
Me too. The data is the usual combination of biased based on incomplete information.
Yeah, because that would make you a liberal.
You read too much. I read 1. Climate change then forwarded to comments
Stupid is as stupid does...
Hey it's Cackmeister!
It's funny that one red part of the chart shows that we are over 400ppm CO2, but in another green part, it says that the oceans aren't going to turn acidic until we're above 350ppm...
So, if the oceans aren't acidic RIGHT NOW...at 400PPM...
Yeah, explain that logic. Some green scientists are tards. Not that we shouldn't develop renewable energies, but at the same time this CO2 climate change bullshit is not the reason to do it.
You should really stop considering displaying your Dunning-Kruger in public...
If I am a woman, I sure do have a big cock...
Would you like to suck it?
Flak - I admire your passion in looking after the environment. But your sold on the wrong argument. Pouring carcinogens into the atmosphere causes cancer and other pulminary disordorders. We must continue doing better. See my later comment on water displacement and Archimedes regarding global warming. This is easy to prove. Measure sea level off the coast of Manhatten to 50 years ago. Tell us what you find.
Are you being serious?
Sea Level Rise Manhatten since 1900
Are you so intellectually challenged and lazy that 30 seconds of work could not answer the question???
Well, geez, that settles it.
hold on...?
you make that yourself?
Be patient, the meds will eventually kick in....
when did you take them?
She's back and full of cack.
And Flaky piles on with another ad hominem attack. Makes you wonder Bob if Flaky has anything else in the tank. I don't know Jim I look for Flaky to pull out a straw man at some point and maybe a red herring when victory is near.
Back at ya. I am a skeptic on a subject that was not "science" until there was a narrative and a way to pump money from the public coffers and you are so sure about it all. I had asked about your peer-reviewed papers on this subject quite awhile ago and never saw a response. You are the unskilled wanna be climate "scientist". You are just a parrot, nothing more. Climate "scientists" are just leeches.
argumentum ad consequentiam....
You should really stop considering displaying your Dunning-Kruger in public...
Oh Flak. If you think that's a rebuttal to the notion that the oceans aren't becoming more acidic, I'm afraid you're off base. Again. The oceans aren't becoming more acidic. They becoming less alkaline.
And no, Miss 'Scientist', that's not the same thing. At all.
Might they start becoming acidic, eventually? Possibly... but they aren't even neutral, yet.
so, increasing pH is not "acidification"...
\facepalm3
So, please remind us of what sea fauna have thrived in a pH less than 8 over the past 300 million years?
Ball is in your court...
so, increasing pH is not "acidification"...
Er, what? Acids are less than 7; the hysteria is over the seas becoming more acidic, ie, the pH is decreasing. Jesus you are hopeless.
So, please remind us of what sea fauna have thrived in a pH less than 8 over the past 300 million years?
Ball is in your court...
And when, in the last 300 million years, has the sea had a pH of less than 8?
Ball is in your court...
Semantics is the handmaiden of liars...
So what would you call a decrease in pH?
The CO2 will be dissolving into the ocean whether there are humans burning carbon or not.
Not only that but locked up in these damnable leaves all over my yard ;-)
"It's funny that one red part of the chart shows that we are over 400ppm CO2, but in another green part, it says that the oceans aren't going to turn acidic until we're above 350ppm...
So, if the oceans aren't acidic RIGHT NOW...at 400PPM...
Yeah, explain that logic. Some green scientists are tards. Not that we shouldn't develop renewable energies, but at the same time this CO2 climate change bullshit is not the reason to do it."
Glad someone else spotted that too. That was pretty fvcking retarded. Really???
I would delete 1 and replace with 9
Yeah fuck all this "science" shit, here at zerohedge the only thing we believe in is capitalism.
Well, sorry to pee on your punch, but at the current rate we're going to the slaughter of everyone and everything. We could lower our numbers in voluntary, like not having more than 1 child per person (2 per couple), more contraceptives, abortion, less consumption, less travel, etc... But the time is running out. If we won't control our numbers, nature will do it for us. And that won't be pretty.
Let ME guess...
A 2% representative population demographic controls the power nodes of:
- Money counterfeitting
- political activism
- MSM garbage & propaganda
- jurisprudence
Yes... becoming more inhospitable by the day... But in the end, @ssholes... You can't fool Mother Nature [so the joke will inevitably be upon you]...
Define "Mother Nature".
Chaos
Anything not capable of abstract logical thinking?
"Define "Mother Nature".
Some comments make sense and are welcome. Others are apparently written out of pure boredom.
I think he actually asked ME the question [though I'll also acknowledge the spontaneous ad hoc offerings]...
I'm kinda busy this afternoon bailing basements, & otherwise doing SPRING CHORES... But if anyone is interested in hanging around, when my chores are done I'll blaze up a spliff & address the interrogative directly...
PEACE
"Define "Mother Nature""
I would say that it is all life on earth and everything that connects it together.
Its like a really big tree. If some roots are severed, some branches will wither and die.
This has in my mind both a material and spiritual side.
And Zion needs more division.
The banksters need to repay us.
Always about money, power, and division.
More Bad science, why bother posting ??
What is the sustainable population of lemmings ?
Can you give details regarding this being 'bad science' please.
By the way, the lemming thing is mostly a myth.
http://io9.com/lemming-suicide-is-a-myth-that-was-perpetuated-by-disne-1...
This has very little to do with science because it's an opinion piece.
Your comment has little, or nothing, to do with what I typed.
My penguin just masturbated on the daises again.
Closer?
Obviously science has to be present before it can be bad. This is not analytic and objective, it is associative and subjective.
So commenting about "bad science" is irrelevant and your comment is irrelevant.
See previous comment.
Oooh, that's so persuasive! Just what people want: to be scolded by a fucking Swedish "environmental scientist"...
Fuck you, Professor!
"WWGD ? What Would George Do"
Brilliant!
The banksters need to repay us.
Ditto x 1000 - "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas!" :-)
I'm sure Corporate America, in all its wisdom, compassion and generosity, will save the day for all us -
Never let a crisis go to waste, regardless of if it is real, imagined or deliberately created.
And never mind if your report from a distinguished scientist contradicts itself. Number Seven says we can avoid ocean acidification if we stay under 350PPM in atmospheric CO2. But Number One says we are already at 400PPM and climbing.
Reading comprehension was never your strong suit, apparently...
Enjoy oysters while they last...
Does it suck being in disagreement with reality & empirical science?
Hee, hee, hee...
What reality are you referring to? Because all of empirical science is on my side...
Well does it? You are.
Flak is 100% dead right with the science.
OHHHHH! Flaky adds to the debate with a stunning ad hominem.
And again you display a complete ignorance of what an ad hominem actually is...
Seriously...
All I said is that it is clear that he does not understand what was written...
Ha! Heartland Institute. If you believe them I guess you also believe Obama when he tells you you ain't being spied on... One has to be gullible...
A Scientist warns.... blah, blah, blah...
Professional BS.
Science is becoming a joke and hijacked for political ends.
So in 4.7 Billion years it'll be completely uninhabitable. Thats cool with me.
Oh, you want me to quit driving what I want and get into your Google EcoBox?
Get Al Gore and Bono to start flying business class and then I'll *think* about it.
Its was not habitable for humans until about 200m years ago.
So it turns to a crisp in 200 million years. I'm ok with that too.
We ever find the Wolly Mammoth's SUVs that caused all that global warming back then?
Save the Dinosaurs.
The banksters need to repay us.
Yeah, but Haus, the thing you're supposed to freak out about is that it's ACCELERATING. It won't be 200MM more years. It'll be like.... two or something. That's assuming it's not already too late. WOOOooooOOOOO. Spooky!
We need to sacrifice our virgins to the angry earth god. No, wait... wrong millennium. We need to sacrifice our cars to the angry earth god.
Maybe they wanna sacrifice 2/3 of the Earth's population to their sun god lucifer?
When these "scientists" start topping themselves in order to save the planet, then I might take them a little more seriously. Otherwise, all I see are efforts to secure .gov and .edu grants.
Heraclitus had it figured 2,500 years ago when he wrote, "No man ever steps in the same river twice."
We have been very fortunate to be living at a time of the earth's history when there has been relatively little climactic change. It might not burn to a crisp but the probability is high that the earth will not be fit for human habitation at some point in the next 100m to 200m years unless, of course, we adapt.
I'm violenty opposed to change. But given millions of years, even I could do it. I suspect as a species we will be able to adapt in that amount of time. Unless we nuke ourselves or the joint gets hit by a planet-killer asteroid again.
This is like children giving cute little gifts to their parents to "help" them. A nice gesture, but totally unnecessary.
Won't we have burned all of the sequestered carbon way before then? I don't see what the problem is.
You realize that radiometric isotope dating that is relied upon to prove the earth is +/- 4.7 billion years old has been just as debunked as the climate 'scientists' claims, right?
Yeah, mah bybul tells me its 5 zausond yurrs ole...
He's talking about the remaining time not the time we've had already. Sun's corona will encompass the Earth.
By the way ppm is parts per million. Not to mention increased CO2 means Increased crop production, Plants need less water because they are no longer gasping for CO2. That evil gas that's plant food.
Number 3 is less reguired if number one CO2 increases. But heck thats biology.
Perhaps if we got africans out of grass huts and helped them grow crops and provided clean drinking water and sanatation. They would not have to rape the local enviroment for cooking fires, meat on the hoof. But I guess starvation is the new world order plan.
We have been down this road before. What was the PPM for CO2 when the dinosaurs lived in their TROPICAL PARADISE? Exactly. Warmer = better!
Stick to engineering cigars.
Warmer = better???
WTF does that actually mean??
If you live in Siberia warmer is better. Arizona not so much.
it means ice ages are much worse time to live... this simple fact escapes you?
Let's say that the PPM of CO2 was higher or about where we are globally today. The difference back than since there was zero human development was massive vegetation as well as rainforest and massive forested lands that were not being artificially being burnt or clear cut. And since a greater and larger rainforest acts as a significant carbon sink, this is what we are reducing precipitously in our world.
So - kill all humans?
That environment would not permit humans to live at all.
Nothing is built to last anymore.
I blame globalization.
These are the same scientists and researchers that has kept hemp banned for a century. That was one of humanities greatest mistakes. So much bloodshed could have been avoided.
Try to look at it from the Du Ponts point of view. The profits were outstanding.
In 1000 years, humanity will still marvel in the visage of Du Pont! All hail the great DuPont!!
Corporations and governments in their pockets kept hemp banned, not scientists.
Complacency is culpability. Too many said nothing to claim innocence. Hang'em all, until moral improves.
No. Those were the racist origins of the War on Drugs (see Billie Holiday), and their false science with the mouse inside the cage with watered cocaine. Science tells another tale on drugs in general, but the business of keeping it illegal has grown out of proportion for reason to sink in...
My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them they all stand together. Isaiah 48:13; He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. Psalm 104:5. The earth is the the LORD's and everything in it, the world and all who live in it; he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters. Psalm 24:1-2
Oh, stop it. Here's what's far more likely to happen.
1. Our masters will develop robots that are smarter than any human, and order them to kill us all.
2. By accident or design our masters will unleash their nuclear arsenal or a biological WMD that will take us with them if and when they sense a real risk they'll be overthrown.
Either way, that will be the end of mankind's reign over the earth, if not the end of carbon-based life---mass murder/suicide by their own leaders, not "climate change." Global warming will be the least of our problems in nuclear winter.
So...SkyNet becomes aware?