Okay, I have some doubts about this climate

hawkdon

hawkdon

Well-known Member
Location
Liberty MO
thing that everyone is hollering about....let's see the earth is 10 milliion yrs old or
so, we humans I think have been around maybe 3000 yrs....so earth went under
constant change before humans, but we humans have had a relatively short time
to ruin the thing.......what....how can this be true, how can we few people have caused
a disaster of drought/fires/shortages/loss of habitat/extinction of animals, all in only 3000 years or so.....so anyway there is my take......don
 

Humans have been around a lot longer than 3000 years. But, most of that time we were hunter gatherers and didn't do much damage. And, our population was low because of high death rates.

And then we got clever. We discovered fossil fuels and we started using them. We reduced our death rate and multiplied like crazy. Now, there are 8 billion of us. That's 8,000,000,000. Our civilization is built on fossil fuels. Our atmosphere which seems huge when you look up at the clouds is really a super thin layer. And we have been pumping carbon dioxide and other pollutants into it at a crazy rate.

Thousands of scientists have been measuring these changes, and simple physics predicts what the results will be. And now we are seeing those results. No surprise.

In the end, the situation will fix itself. Conditions will be such that our population will drop drastically. The fossil fuels will run out, and most of us will be gone. But, it will not be pleasant for our descendants, if there are any.
 

@Grampa Don nailed it. A quick look at population increase and fossil fuel combustion increase over the last few hundred years explains a lot. Yes, there are natural phenomena (Pinatubo, for example) that can temporarily override or exaggerate human caused changes, but to deny that we're contributing to our climate issues defies logic and science.
 
Grampa Don said:
Humans have been around a lot longer than 3000 years. But, most of that time we were hunter gatherers and didn't do much damage. And, our population was low because of high death rates.

And then we got clever. We discovered fossil fuels and we started using them. We reduced our death rate and multiplied like crazy. Now, there are 8 billion of us. That's 8,000,000,000. Our civilization is built on fossil fuels. Our atmosphere which seems huge when you look up at the clouds is really a super thin layer. And we have been pumping carbon dioxide and other pollutants into it at a crazy rate.

Thousands of scientists have been measuring these changes, and simple physics predicts what the results will be. And now we are seeing those results. No surprise.

In the end, the situation will fix itself. Conditions will be such that our population will drop drastically. The fossil fuels will run out, and most of us will be gone. But, it will not be pleasant for our descendants, if there are any.
Click to expand...
I am a bit slow tonight. What exactly are you alluding to ?
 
Jackie23 said:
Wow! Very interesting, sounds like Canada is the place to be, their population expected to triple by 2100....change is coming.
Click to expand...

officerripley said:
Great article, thanks for posting.
Click to expand...

It does sound like Canada will be the future -- that or Siberia, and I don't think any of us would care to think of that as a 'future home' for our future generations.


@Pinky, @MickaC, @mike4lorie and other forum members from Canada - if you haven't seen the article, it's thought provoking.
 
Last edited:
It will not be more than a few decades before a mass migration of 100's of millions will occur. Those migrants will be leaving any properties and most of their wealth behind as they struggle for a new life in a better climate. The world will become increasingly divided between the Haves and Have Nots, which will ultimately lead to a massive global civil war. By the year 2100, humanity will be totally involved in a complete restructuring of society.
 
hawkdon said:
but we humans have had a relatively short time
to ruin the thing.......what....how can this be true, how can we few people have caused
a disaster of drought/fires/shortages/loss of habitat/extinction of animals, all in only 3000 years or so.
Click to expand...
We've changed the makeup of the atmosphere, the color of the earth, and diverted a lot of its freshwaters. Just to name a few. I have always thought the Ruddiman hypothesis that we have been impacting the climate for the last 7,000 years makes some sense. To quote:

The early anthropogenic hypothesis (EAH) of Ruddiman (2003) claimed that the anomalous rise in atmospheric CO2 that began near 7000 years ago was caused by deforestation and contrasted with the falling trends late in previous interglaciations (Fig. 1a). The hypothesis also attributed the start of a similarly anomalous increase of methane (CH4) near 5000 years ago to anthropogenic emissions from large-scale rice paddy farming and livestock tending.
The early anthropogenic hypothesis_ A review.jpg

From: The early anthropogenic hypothesis: A review https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...s (EAH,late in previous interglaciations (Fig.
 
Alligatorob said:
We've changed the makeup of the atmosphere, the color of the earth, and diverted a lot of its freshwaters. Just to name a few. I have always thought the Ruddiman hypothesis that we have been impacting the climate for the last 7,000 years makes some sense. To quote:

The early anthropogenic hypothesis (EAH) of Ruddiman (2003) claimed that the anomalous rise in atmospheric CO2 that began near 7000 years ago was caused by deforestation and contrasted with the falling trends late in previous interglaciations (Fig. 1a). The hypothesis also attributed the start of a similarly anomalous increase of methane (CH4) near 5000 years ago to anthropogenic emissions from large-scale rice paddy farming and livestock tending.
View attachment 237183

From: The early anthropogenic hypothesis: A review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379120303486#:~:text=The early anthropogenic hypothesis (EAH,late in previous interglaciations (Fig.
Click to expand...
What I have a hard time understanding is how one could think that 8 billion people, I mean 8 billion, could not have an effect. I really don't understand that thinking. Eight. Billion. People.
 
Bonnie said:
Pinky is in Canada.

Wonder if the following can be viewed in Canada?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...end-up-living-as-the-planet-burns/ar-AA11iZFQ
Click to expand...
Yes, the link is available to me .. thank you!

The weather here in Canada is as changeable as anywhere else. For instance, Vancouver got more snow last winter than usual, and was hotter than usual this summer.

We didn't get that much snow here in Toronto, last winter .. however, predictions are that we will get a fair bit this winter.
 
Alligatorob said:
We've changed the makeup of the atmosphere, the color of the earth, and diverted a lot of its freshwaters. Just to name a few. I have always thought the Ruddiman hypothesis that we have been impacting the climate for the last 7,000 years makes some sense. To quote:

The early anthropogenic hypothesis (EAH) of Ruddiman (2003) claimed that the anomalous rise in atmospheric CO2 that began near 7000 years ago was caused by deforestation and contrasted with the falling trends late in previous interglaciations (Fig. 1a). The hypothesis also attributed the start of a similarly anomalous increase of methane (CH4) near 5000 years ago to anthropogenic emissions from large-scale rice paddy farming and livestock tending.
View attachment 237183

From: The early anthropogenic hypothesis: A review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379120303486#:~:text=The early anthropogenic hypothesis (EAH,late in previous interglaciations (Fig.
Click to expand...

That's a lot to absorb! ...
iu
 

Back
Top