Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[niky]

I think you're considerably overplaying it if you think that enforced human population control is either practical or a proportionate response to a reduction in algae.

China currently has a system similar to the one you describe. I won't even begin to cover what's wrong with it.

Mounds of aborted female fetuses? Embryo soup?

 

[Dotini]

Mounds of aborted female fetuses? Embryo soup?

Hordes of restless, unattached males.

 

[Keef]

Hordes of restless, unattached males.

You ever seen Jurassic Park? Life will find a way buddy, whether you've got Vaseline or not!

 

[Niels]

I don't react to this as a response to the algae problem.
It actually is a stand-alone thought anyway.
Even if you take away the algae problem now.
You can't keep producing children unlimited anyway ever again like this using some common sense.

It's not a matter of it being a proper solution to the algae problem.
It's never going to be possible. It has never been possible anyway, we will notice in a couple of years. It has never been a possibility in the first place.

There are boundaries and limits, physical limits, to any population increase.
In nature, as a biologist yourself it should be a common sight, it's starvation wich mainly manages population.
Now we can do it our own controlled way. Or just go out of controll and let the future take is to what ever it has in store to us.
I'm just saying, everyone is relying on this future to still be good. And that's where I'm saying, it's impossible that it's going to be a good future for us this way ever again. If we continue now. So at least, concider your options instead of just putting off population controll because it's a bit uncomfortable

You can draw your own conclusions and think now "population controll isn't the right solution for it". But think of something else, because this is going to escalate suddenly without anyone really realising it if we don't do otherwise.

And I'd be carefull to judge the amount of "global warming" in your own home area to judge the entire global warming problem on it's own.
Russia has had it's hottest summer since 130 years now. Not even to mention that Russia having hot summers at all is pretty remarkable for a country where in some areas you can expect minus 40 degree Celcius in the winter. It's shouldn't even be warm there in the first place.

Edit:

I guess all I'm saying now is. You might not like the solution now, but concidering the things heading towards us if we dón't do anything, it might well end up a lot worse for us all. And it could be that population controll wouldn't be such a bad thing after all, considering other possible outcomes for this.

 

[Famine]

You can't keep producing children unlimited anyway ever again like this using some common sense.

In the developed world, we don't. In fact, it's pretty much a defining demographic of developed nations - low birthrate, low deathrate, low rate of population change.

There are boundaries and limits, physical limits, to any population increase.
In nature, as a biologist yourself it should be a common sight, it's starvation wich mainly manages population.
Now we can do it our own controlled way. Or just go out of controll and let the future take is to what ever it has in store to us.
I'm just saying, everyone is relying on this future to still be good. And that's where I'm saying, it's impossible that it's going to be a good future for us this way ever again. If we continue now. So at least, concider your options instead of just putting off population controll because it's a bit uncomfortable

It's nothing to do with being "uncomfortable" about it. It's nothing to do with the fact it's immoral and inhumane - though it is. It's that it is completely impractical and impossible. Legislated population control won't halt population growth in developed countries - it's already halted. But it does have the potential to wipe out populations very quickly.

And, lest it is required for me to point this out, we are not bacteria.

 

[Dotini]

Let's see, more than usual solar flare activity for the past few years and we get some of the hottest temps we've ever had here in SoCal.

This year, very little solar flare activity and we get some of the coldest July temps ever recorded. It's 15-17 degrees lower than normal.

Experts relate 'Global Warming' to solar flare activity several years ago. Mostly ignored by world liberals demanding billions for scientific study of man-made global warming.

Man-made global warming a fraud? Yep. For the most part.

These are all solid points. The sun is in the driver's seat when it comes to dictating weather and climate on Earth.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE57R0L520090828

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Small changes in the energy output of the sun can have a major impact on global weather patterns, such as the intensity of the Indian monsoon, that could be predicted years in advance, a team of scientists said.

The sun swings through an 11-year cycle measured in the number of sun spots on the surface that emit bursts of energy.

The difference in energy is only about 0.1 percent between a solar maximum and minimum and determining just how that small variation affects the world's climate has been one of the great challenges facing meteorologists.

Using a century of weather observations and complex computer models, the international team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in the United States showed that even a small increase in the sun's energy can intensify wind and rainfall patterns.

"Small changes in the sun's output over the 11-year solar cycle have long been known to have impacts on the global climate system," said Julie Arblaster, from the Center for Australian Weather and Climate Research, a co-author of the study published in the latest issue of the journal Science.

"Here we reconcile for the first time the mechanisms by which these small variations get amplified, resulting in cooler sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific and enhancing off-equatorial rainfall."

The researchers found that during periods of strong solar activity the air in the upper atmosphere, in a layer called the stratosphere, heats up. This occurs over the tropics, where sunlight is typically most intense.

There are a few things to keep in mind when the 0.1 change of irradiance figure is used, as it only addresses the visible electromagnetic wave spectrum. X-rays increase at solar maximum by 10 fold. Ultra-violet rays increase 2 or 3 fold. There are increases in all segments of the electromagnetic wave spectrum of radiation, but all we normally hear about is the misleading 0.1 figure. Also, it ignores all the electrical current energy, by way of electrons and ions, imparted during maximum, which is a significant amount of energy.http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/

Having said all that, it is still a puzzle to me exactly how we got into the current ongoing extinction level event. These happen only in multi-million year cycles. Yet here we are now, in the process of losing the bulk of all plant and animal species on the planet, with the food chain dying off from the bottom up. On bright palliative idea, which may meet with approval from Famine, is to switch from eating a diet rich in animal meat and fat to one centered around eating insects as the primary source of fats and protein. Yucky, but there it is, if you want to endure famine yet still double the human population.

 

[Niels]

In the developed world, we don't. In fact, it's pretty much a defining demographic of developed nations - low birthrate, low deathrate, low rate of population change.

Offcourse I'm just relying on numbers and statistics I'm reading from other sources so I cannot argue your estimates here now as we speak.
Though, where is this coming from when I'm always hearing basically literally everywhere, that world population still is on the increase pretty rapidly at the moment.

Then there's one thing I would like to mention about the algae problems itsself. If it was just for the oxigen the algae produce worldwide, and the decrease in algae was measured by looking at the color of the oceans instead of all kinds of questionable research methods... this is getting pretty severe on it's own now already.
While I don't know what effects it will have, this cannot continue like that now unnoticed.
I think there are undeniable consequences coming towards us now that this is starting to escalate into a massive algae problem.
The scary thing is that it's quite big. Actually a percent decline a year. I mean that's a lot!

Then, there's my doubt about if the human race is actually supporting our 6 billion people on this planet fully at all.
If still half of our population still has to acquire enough food, shelter and cars/other luxury for them to be even remotely satisfied, there's no way we can be capable of actually supporting the 6 billion people we have on our planet at the moment.

So if you mean by "resources for double the population" with our resources spread around this unfairly and unevenly as it is at this moment, then your estimates are not going to be used that optimistically. Because in that case it won't be 6 billion people currently at all, going onto 12 billion people after being doubled.
It'll be for example 3 billion people supported well enough now, and all of our population in the future. With the limit being right there, so there's no room then whatsoever.

That means we can not afford any population increase whatsoever, as I believe it's only a matter of time before the rest of the world can catch up. Unless there is support for this uneven distribution of goods.

In that case I can put more questionmarks towards your policy than to my kind of policy I had in mind. Because Africa and all the other poorer people on our planet are bound to catch up. Unless you want to controll their acces to modern day luxury. If I'm actually going to start calling food a luxury at all.

Edit:

Having said all that, it is still a puzzle to me exactly how we got into the current ongoing extinction level event. These happen only in multi-million year cycles. Yet here we are now, in the process of losing the bulk of all plant and animal species on the planet, with the food chain dying off from the bottom up. On bright palliative idea, which may meet with approval from Famine, is to switch from eating a diet rich in animal meat and fat to one centered around eating insects as the primary source of fats and protein. Yucky, but there it is, if you want to endure famine yet still double the human population.

The main problem I have against switching to any kind of other food, or more ecological cars is that or those kind of solutions whatsoever.
It's that, there is a point where I believe too much means just too much. You can't help it with doing other stuff.
It could the case it's not that far yet and it's still at the moment possible to switch over to different kinds of food, transportation etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if driving on H20 would case a shortage of water within a couple number of years. Though I'm not approaching this in a very scientifical way. I don't know it will. It's just that I know for sure that it can't have no consequences whatsoever.
Maybe it would start massive massive rainfall all over the world. That can't be good.

 

[FoolKiller]

Considering that birth rates, at least in the US, have been decreasing I think the population control issue is a moot point.

Granted there were almost two million more births than deaths, but there is a trend of less people being born every year as medical science finds all kinds of new ways for us to not multiply.


But if population control ever became a serious issue for debate it would have a hard time finding any support in places like the US.

 

[Famine]

Offcourse I'm just relying on numbers and statistics I'm reading from other sources so I cannot argue your estimates here now as we speak.

Let's take the G7 countries - supposedly the most developed nations - of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US and Canada. Excluding migration (since migration is just moving people about, not creating/removing them)

Canada
Birth rate - 10.28/1000 (1.03%)
Death rate - 7.74/1000 (0.77%)
Annual population increase - 2.54/1000 (0.25%)

France
Birth rate - 12.91/1000 (1.29%)
Death rate - 8.97/1000 (0.90%)
Annual population increase - 3.94/1000 (0.39%)

Germany
Birth rate - 8.18/1000 (0.82%)
Death rate - 10.90/1000 (1.09%)
Annual population increase - -2.72/1000 (-0.27%)

Italy
Birth rate - 9.60/1000 (0.96%)
Death rate - 9.72/1000 (0.97%)
Annual population increase - -0.12/1000 (-0.01%)

Japan
Birth rate - 7.41/1000 (0.74%)
Death rate - 9.83/1000 (0.98%)
Annual population increase - -2.42/1000 (-0.24%)

UK
Birth rate - 10.71/1000 (1.07%)
Death rate - 10.13/1000 (1.01%)
Annual population increase - 0.58/1000 (0.06%)

US
Birth rate - 13.83/1000 (1.38%)
Death rate - 8.38/1000 (0.84%)
Annual population increase - 5.45/1000 (0.55%)

See the low percentages across the board? Now, for a quick comparison, let's try an "undeveloped" nation and a "developing" nation. For the "developing" nation we need something with some recognisable modern technology and facilities, but not to the level of developed nations - I'd pick Mexico and Pakistan, but you can select your own.

Mexico
Birth rate - 19.39/1000 (1.94%)
Death rate - 4.83/1000 (0.48%)
Annual population increase - 14.56/1000 (1.46%)

Pakistan
Birth rate - 25.09/1000 (2.51%)
Death rate - 7.06/1000 (0.71%)
Annual population increase - 18.03/1000 (1.80%)

For an "undeveloped" nation we'd need something without modern facilities - hospitals, schools, paved roads... Somewhere you could be dropped and find unrecognisable as a country. But, to avoid skewing the results, somewhere that hasn't recently had a war or natural disaster. This is actually a lot trickier than it sounds - there's relatively few undeveloped nations left (though there are pockets of undeveloped people within other nations). I've plumped for Malawi.

Malawi
Birth rate - 41.28/1000 (4.13%)
Death rate - 13.69/1000 (1.37%)
Annual population increase - 27.59/1000 (2.76%)

Check out the high percentages across the board...

There are four demographic stages that define a country's development status:

1. Undeveloped - High birth rate, high death rate, low life expectancy, low and very chaotic rate of population change.
2. Developing 1 - High birth rate, lowering death rate, increasing life expectancy, high rate of population increase.
3. Developing 2 - Lowering birth rate, low death rate, increasing life expectancy, high but decreasing rate of population increase.
4. Developed - Low birth rate, low death rate, high life expectancy, low and very chaotic rate of population change.

The numbers above bear this out. Our developed nations have some of the lowest birth rates worldwide and those that have a higher rate also have a higher death rate. The change in population from births and deaths alone is minimal. A truely undeveloped nation would have some of the highest birth and death rates worldwide, a similarly low change in population and low life expectancy - you can see Malawi's death rate isn't actually a whole lot worse than that of the UK or US, but they have a colossal birth rate and this puts them squarely in the first group of developing nations. Pakistan and Mexico are firmly in the second group - their death rate is low and the birth rate is coming down to meet it.

So even if you decide that we need to control our population by force, we couldn't make a dent in the planet's rate of population change between the G7 countries.

But, for amusement's sake, let's include China, who've had just such a population control regime in place for some years now:

China
Birth rate - 12.17/1000 (1.22%)
Death rate - 6.89/1000 (0.69%)
Annual population increase - 5.28/1000 (0.53%)

Yup. Population increase of 6.4 million people every year. And the US manages a quarter of that without an immoral, inhumane, impractical edict on who may breed.

Though, where is this coming from when I'm always hearing basically literally everywhere, that world population still is on the increase pretty rapidly at the moment.

Takes 20 minutes to prove that this is bollocks.

Then, there's my doubt about if the human race is actually supporting our 6 billion people on this planet fully at all.

Well now that's a completely different question. We can produce enough food and water, with present technology and available land, to feed 12 billion average Americans (or Brits, or Germans - pick your own developed country). That's 30 trillion calories a day and all the liquid required. It's available to probably a sixth of that currently - but that's not necessarily a case of greed and selfishness on behalf of the developed nations. We do, after all, try to bring our own values and culture (and democracy) to quite a few people who wouldn't otherwise have access to it in less developed nations.

But here's where we run into a second problem. If we suddenly flooded the world with "Western" (developed nations) food, technology, medicine and suchlike, we'd increase life expectancies and reduce death rates globally. Birth rates, on the other hand, would stay the same for quite some time (I refer you to the demographics of development earlier - first both are high with low life expectancy, then death rates drop and life expectancy goes up, then birth rates drop, and, finally, both are low with high life expectancy). Imagine what would happen in a country like Angola if we slashed the death rates from 23.74 (highest in the world) to 10 (US/UK levels) but the birth rate remained at 43.33 (6th highest in the world) for 25 years - the population would double. In fifty years you'd have a population equal to that of the UK in a country where the land can barely support a population equal to that of New York.

If still half of our population still has to acquire enough food, shelter and cars/other luxury for them to be even remotely satisfied, there's no way we can be capable of actually supporting the 6 billion people we have on our planet at the moment.

So if you mean by "resources for double the population" with our resources spread around this unfairly and unevenly as it is at this moment, then your estimates are not going to be used that optimistically. Because in that case it won't be 6 billion people currently at all, going onto 12 billion people after being doubled.
It'll be for example 3 billion people supported well enough now, and all of our population in the future. With the limit being right there, so there's no room then whatsoever.

See above.

That means we can not afford any population increase whatsoever

We don't have one. In the developed world.

In that case I can put more questionmarks towards your policy than to my kind of policy I had in mind.

My policy? Of what? I don't recall advocating any policy.

 

[Dotini]

We do, after all, try to bring our own values and culture (and democracy) to quite a few people who wouldn't otherwise have access to it in less developed nations.

My policy? Of what? I don't recall advocating any policy.

Famine, would it be fair to say this is a policy you are comfortable with, even if you do not actively advocate it?

@Niels,
You have stated numerous times that world population is 6 billion. I think it is closer to 6.89 billion, and on track to go over 7 billion within a few months.

 

[Niels]

I've never heard about how it could be remotely possible to substain a population of 12 billion people... the american way of living .
I thought you were going to come with a theory "yes it's possible" and then an unrealistic scenario of us cutting back in every technologically possible way. Wood and sticks again. But not even. An american style of life for double the population.
I don't see where it's going wrong now then, if it's supposedly all this easy to substain.

I'm just interpreting the signals and they aren't good.
Famine, your approach is "it's not going wrong at all".
My approach is "there must be something going wrong".
If you tell me it's not got anything to do with overpopulation how else are you going to explain the massive changes that are happening on our planet and the global warming problem.
Algae are a too serious concern to just ignore. They would be responsible for supplying the majority of the world's oxigen for crying out loud.
That's not something I want to disappear to be honest. It can't be going that well.
It's nice that I still have the ability to eat, that's what's going well... but it has nothing to do with the algae problem though. That is what has to be solved now, nothing else (ofcourse there are some other issues, but don't quote me on that).

As far as Famine's "policy".
I meant to say something completely different with a possible policy Famine might support. It was an "in that case" sentence.
As far as I'm concerned it's Dotini's quoted policy wich is the only possible policy you could have advocated, if at all. But wich is a good thing if I'm correct. Maybe it came across differently towards Dotini, but I think he was just targeting human aid/ rights initiatives from our developed world, wich would be a good thing now.

 

[Danoff]

Niels,

You have subscribed to a very common but dangerous worldview that views any alteration of the environment by human beings as "the problem", and the behavior of every other animal on the planet as "the solution". This is why when presented with a potential environmental problem you immediately blame human beings and propose a solution that involves not-quite-genocide.

I have to tell you, I absolutely despise that line of reasoning. I see it constantly and very little bothers me more. If anything is happening in the environment the knee-jerk "humans are causing it" followed immediately by "we need to stop what we're doing" is not only a common sentiment, but, it short circuits a very important analytical and problem-solving process:

- What is causing this?
- How important is the effect?
- Are there natural responses that will alter the effect?
- Do we need to attempt to counteract the effect? If so, how much sacrifice is it worth?
- What is the most efficient and effective way to counteract the effect?

All of these questions are bypassed with the immediate "it's our fault and we need to stop breathing" response. It's a symptom of the guilt that stems from a lack of understanding of economic development. You have access to a comfortable life, and you don't understand how it was gotten. The assumed (and often incorrect) answer to this question is often that your comfortable life has been somehow stolen from (is at the expense of) others (either poor people, the environment or possibly both).

My response to you is the same as always. The answer is technology. To solve the environmental problems we encounter, whether they are man-made or otherwise, we need to have GREATER influence over the environment.

 

[Famine]

Famine, would it be fair to say this is a policy you are comfortable with, even if you do not actively advocate it?

Nope.

I've never heard about how it could be remotely possible to substain a population of 12 billion people... the american way of living .
I thought you were going to come with a theory "yes it's possible" and then an unrealistic scenario of us cutting back in every technologically possible way. Wood and sticks again. But not even. An american style of life for double the population.
I don't see where it's going wrong now then, if it's supposedly all this easy to substain.

Possible and easy are not necessarily the same thing - just as being able to supply a 2,500 calorie a day diet to every man, woman and child on the planet twice over is not necessarily the same thing as supplying it. Or being obliged to. Or, to which I previously alluded, it being right to. Suddenly increasing the life expectancy and decreasing the death rate of an individual country would be quite nice for the people involved, but quite catastrophic for the country and - if you're concerned about population growth - everyone else.

I'm just interpreting the signals and they aren't good.
Famine, your approach is "it's not going wrong at all".
My approach is "there must be something going wrong".

I don't recall saying anything of the sort. I just don't advocate knee-jerk responses to perceived issues based on poor understanding of the mechanisms involved without consideration of wider repercussions.

If you tell me it's not got anything to do with overpopulation how else are you going to explain the massive changes that are happening on our planet and the global warming problem.

Like every other explanation of global warming, I suspect that increased human population has an effect on the overall outcome. It's quite unclear, however, what that effect is and its magnitude. It's certainly not enough to warrant cries for legislated breeding and forced sterilisation.

Algae are a too serious concern to just ignore. They would be responsible for supplying the majority of the world's oxigen for crying out loud.

If you could just fill in the blank at step 2 here, it'd help understand what exactly you're talking about:

1. Decline in algae population.
2. ????
3. Eugenics

 

[Niels]

If you could just fill in the blank at step 2 here, it'd help understand what exactly you're talking about:

1. Decline in algae population.
2. ????
3. Eugenics

Niels,
I have to tell you, I absolutely despise that line of reasoning. I see it constantly and very little bothers me more. If anything is happening in the environment the knee-jerk "humans are causing it" followed immediately by "we need to stop what we're doing" is not only a common sentiment, but, it short circuits a very important analytical and problem-solving process:

Now, this is my point exactly.

You see sometimes I notice people would rather like to stay in the original problem right now than the first possible solution that they can come up with.
Let me show you a more effective kind of approach.

Let's do it alternatively.

Edit: Actually let's make it more realistic, and then put the line of order into debate. Cause I've already seen a sure second alternative that I haven't put up there yet.

- 1 Mass extinction
Ok lets get rid of that by thinking of a number 2. Quickly.

- 2 Wood and sticks
Ok. The reason why it's 2 though is because I don't think it's going to work, and I think it'll ultimately just provoke all out war. I can explain that to you if you really want to. But it's not possible to balance this out evenly, is what it comes down to.

- 3 Population controll
I can see it happening, in worst case scenario.
But obviously not many of you.

- 4 Anyone ?
There's my problem.

And there's the actual reason why initially started this whole mess.
Because I don't think it's out there.

There are a few attempts at solving it. But they aint fully worked out.
And they're not proving sufficient up till now. And then people just leave it in the middle like "I don't care".
Now there's a truth in it, because I have a slight hunch that it won't get GTP rescueing this planet.
Though, I won't be satisfied with that. I want to know it, what is number 4? Is there even a clear solution number 4?

Cause the real danger IMO that I see happening all over the place is... having half of plan 4.
And then trusting that it'll work out itsself on it's own, and then forgetting about it.
Well it's going to be 3 then all over again. But even worse, if it's a poorly executed 4 wich fails to work it's going all the way back to 1.
I'd rather have a sure 3 (though opinions might differ) than half 4 half 1.
That's going to be 2 in my book.

So back to 4?

 

[Dotini]

I have a slight hunch that it won't get GTP rescuing this planet.

Right there is the most hilarious idea I ever heard of. We are the people who put the "play" into Playstation.

 

[Famine]

Now, this is my point exactly.

You see sometimes I notice people would rather like to stay in the original problem right now than the first possible solution that they can come up with.
Let me show you a more effective kind of approach.

Let's do it alternatively.

Edit: Actually let's make it more realistic, and then put the line of order into debate. Cause I've already seen a sure second alternative that I haven't put up there yet.

- 1 Mass extinction
Ok lets get rid of that by thinking of a number 2. Quickly.

- 2 Wood and sticks
Ok. The reason why it's 2 though is because I don't think it's going to work, and I think it'll ultimately just provoke all out war. I can explain that to you if you really want to. But it's not possible to balance this out evenly, is what it comes down to.

- 3 Population controll
I can see it happening, in worst case scenario.
But obviously not many of you.

- 4 Anyone ?
There's my problem.

And there's the actual reason why initially started this whole mess.
Because I don't think it's out there.

There are a few attempts at solving it. But they aint fully worked out.
And they're not proving sufficient up till now. And then people just leave it in the middle like "I don't care".
Now there's a truth in it, because I have a slight hunch that it won't get GTP rescueing this planet.
Though, I won't be satisfied with that. I want to know it, what is number 4? Is there even a clear solution number 4?

Cause the real danger IMO that I see happening all over the place is... having half of plan 4.
And then trusting that it'll work out itsself on it's own, and then forgetting about it.
Well it's going to be 3 then all over again. But even worse, if it's a poorly executed 4 wich fails to work it's going all the way back to 1.
I'd rather have a sure 3 (though opinions might differ) than half 4 half 1.
That's going to be 2 in my book.

So back to 4?

Huh?

Here's what you originally posted:

Just saw a dutch article on the decline of algue in the sees.
Googled up an english version article for you: http://www.keenesentinel.com/article.../id_408005.txt

I don't get this, why can't we just start population controll on humans for once?

1. Problem
Algae are in decline.

2. Reasoning a solution
????

3. Solution
Start population control on humans


You're missing a step 2. There's a giant gap between the problem (algae decline) and your solution (legislate human breeding). I want to know what's going on in your head that leads you from 1 to 3. There must be some reason you think that nearly-genocide is a solution to declining algae population - you just haven't given it.

 

[Dotini]

1. Problem
Algae are in decline.

2. Reasoning a solution
????

Here's what that bastion of intellectual probity, the Wall Street Journal has to say about it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704895004575395273977526844.html

Rising sea temperatures can harm the tiny plant life that forms the base of the oceans' food chain as well as affect the diversity of marine life, two new studies have found.

In research published Wednesday by the journal Nature, scientists found a strong link between higher sea-surface temperatures and a major decline over the past century in marine algae, or phytoplankton. These microscopic plants generate roughly half of all organic matter—the building block of life—on the planet.

A second study, also published in Nature, concludes that warmer seas can influence marine diversity, potentially rearranging the global distribution of ocean life.

Over the years, humans have affected the oceans by polluting and over-fishing and through habitat alteration caused by dredging and other activities. Less understood is the role of higher sea temperatures. Scientists, many of whom believe the increase to be linked to global climate change, estimate the oceans have warmed by roughly half a degree Celsius on average over the past 100 years.

Phytoplankton has flourished in many coastal areas because increased runoff from rivers brings nutrients that the algae gorge on. But no one has properly assessed whether the global oceans are losing or gaining phytoplankton, which forms the base of the marine food chain, from crustaceans to fish and ultimately to humans.

Consistent satellite-based measurements of the algae exist only from 1997. Scientists at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, instead used data obtained with a simple oceanography device used since the late 1800s known as a Secchi—a disk lowered into the water to measure phytoplankton abundance.

By collating and analyzing about half a million Secchi observations, plus other direct measurements of algae, the Dalhousie team estimated that phytoplankton levels declined by about 1% of the global average each year from 1899 onward. The data are more reliable for recent decades, translating into a 40% decline since 1950.

The team investigated several factors that could have caused the decline. "We found that temperature had the best power to explain the changes," said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie and co-author of the study.

Marine algae live in the upper layers of the ocean but rely on nutrients that circulate up from lower layers. Rising temperatures mean the different layers mix less with each other, so fewer nutrients reach the algae. However, Dr. Worm noted that algal abundance can be affected by other factors, such as shifts in predator-prey populations.

Mike Behrenfeld, an expert on phytoplankton at Oregon State University, said the paper was similar to a 1992 study that used Secchi data to show a long-term decline in marine algae in the north Pacific. "But this paper covers the globe," he said. "And the scientists also took the next step of relating the [algal decline] to sea temperatures."

Another team of scientists mapped the diversity of marine life on a broad scale. The researchers analyzed possible links between the global distribution of 11,000 marine species—big and small—to such factors as temperature, oxygen levels and habitat availability. For all species types, only one factor showed a consistent correlation with diversity: sea temperature.

It isn't clear what this means globally. When water warms, some species may move elsewhere, reducing the diversity of their original habitat. Creatures that can't move may come under environmental stress or die off, also altering the ecosystem.

"While a changing climate is likely to lead to a change in patterns of diversity, we don't have the data yet to know what this response might look like," said Derek P. Tittensor, marine ecologist at Dalhousie and co-author of the second Nature paper.

It's clear to see that we cannot as yet answer #2, so to conjecture on #3 must be premature. Party On! And let the government worry about it. Our job is to work, play and consume.

 

[Niels]

Lol, I've just tried to say that my whole frustration comes forth from this exact thing you're posting Famine. Because your desire for step 2 is going to kill you lol. Well offcourse don't take that literally. I refuse to get banned here because of threatning.. an admin...

Your arrangement implies that you immediatly have to get a rightly proportioned solution for the job and you won't take less. Well it shows.
Because you can't understand how I got to three so suddenly.
It's just that I'm trying to explain to you. I work in a different kind of arrangement. I can think of very simple solutions. But there's no real good one. So I think of the least bad one, and try to think of a better one then instead.

I threw in population controll just to start an argument about what other alternatives there could be possible, actually expecting the whole commotion about this subject. You can't put it off though unless you've really got a good alternative. Otherwise you're back at square 1.

If not population controll, what else?
The problem what I face every time when asking this, is that I get this sketchy largely unexplained solution "yeah well it's got to be something technological" and then it just stops.

That's no solution guys. So it's either going to be this or something else but I can't really come up with anything. Can you?
That's my whole question, cause there might be a possibility for someone to go now "oh yeah it could easily work out fine like this".
But I don't think it'll come though.

 

[Danoff]

You need to start with step 1

What is causing this?

I see correlation, but so far that's it. Unless you understand what's going on (and go through my other steps) you can't even start to think of solutions. For all you know, Eugenics would make the problem worse.

 

[Niels]

You need to start with step 1



I see correlation, but so far that's it. Unless you understand what's going on (and go through my other steps) you can't even start to think of solutions. For all you know, Eugenics would make the problem worse.

I came as far as thinking, deciding actually.. "yes, there is now enough evidence to assume that humans are contributing considerably"

Why resort to a solution this bad then all of a sudden is your anwser? Well you haven't got an alternative other than trying though have you?
That is actually my question. Because you could as well just have one.
But you're just refusing to think of something through your own systems and steps.
You're waiting for the proper solution wich might never come.
That won't be a reason for you guys to just sit around and do nothing, I can tell you that, because that what you're currently doing. I don't blame you though again as I've said we are probably not the ones to solve this whole mess.
But that's not a possibility. That's why I'm saying, then it's going to just be number 3 on the list, wich is population controll.

Offcourse, maybe this all has got to do because I've reached a point of saying ok now I'm sure this is not going to end nicely if we don't do anything.
Maybe you haven't reached that point yet. So that's why I'm thinking towards these kind of measures.
But it all has to do with realising what your problems really are. And they can be a lot bigger than not having the freedom anymore to give birth to a limitless amount of children anymore.
It can be a lot worse.

 

[Danoff]

I've got no problem with triage. The possibility that we might have a major problem and that that problem might have no clean solution doesn't bother me. I'm ok with an ugly solution. What I'm not OK with is trying to solve a problem that you don't understand. Because the way you go about solving it might actually make it worse. Bare minimum you don't know if you're going to help or whether you're helping in an efficient way. It's possible there was a simple solution that you missed because you didn't take time to understand the problem.

I've stated this many times in this thread. I'm very much for studying and understanding these issues and then, subsequently, evaluating whether we should do something about it, and, if so, what is the most efficient and worthwhile solution.

I have absolutely no desire to jump to the end just so I can have things wrapped up in a nice tidy bow. I'm ok with living in a world where so problems are unsolved. I tell the same thing to religious people who seem to think that until science finds an answer for everything we must substitute God as the answer... just relax, and be ok with not having all the answers. We're working on developing the understanding.

 

[Dotini]

The decline in algae (plankton) began in 1899 at a 1%/yr rate, best as scientists know. Since 1950 it has declined 40%.

In fact, global plant and animal species are dieing at a rate commensurate only with multi-million year extinctions.

The scientists concede they don't know the full set of reason for this. They think it has something to do with the warming of the global ocean.

Liberals believe this is all caused by man. Many scientists suspect the sun is really the main driver of weather and climate on Earth. Eloi and Morlocks.

So we are faced with a catastrophic extinction event, and we don't know and cannot possibly agree what to do about it, politically split as we are. Only when the situation becomes more immediately threatening will people come together to sort this out. The future of humanity may be insects and cannibalism. Let them pray. But presently the world is an oyster for the wealthy and idle. Let them play.

 

[Niels]

I've got no problem with triage. The possibility that we might have a major problem and that that problem might have no clean solution doesn't bother me. I'm ok with an ugly solution. What I'm not OK with is trying to solve a problem that you don't understand. Because the way you go about solving it might actually make it worse. Bare minimum you don't know if you're going to help or whether you're helping in an efficient way. It's possible there was a simple solution that you missed because you didn't take time to understand the problem.

I've stated this many times in this thread. I'm very much for studying and understanding these issues and then, subsequently, evaluating whether we should do something about it, and, if so, what is the most efficient and worthwhile solution.

I have absolutely no desire to jump to the end just so I can have things wrapped up in a nice tidy bow. I'm ok with living in a world where so problems are unsolved. I tell the same thing to religious people who seem to think that until science finds an answer for everything we must substitute God as the answer... just relax, and be ok with not having all the answers. We're working on developing the understanding.

I guess this all comes forth from a point of view where there is uncertainty on what is the real problem.
If you really don't believe the problem are human beings, I can understand your concern. Nothing worse than trying to solve it one way, and then discovering afterwards that the source came from something completely else.
I can understand the concern, it's a matter of opinion and belief I guess though how likely we think it is that it's going to be something else other than human cause.

Because in my opinion I'm already done with thinking lol. That is dangerous, I admit. But there is a point where I go blanc. I understand you though.
How likely do you think it is that it will be something else than humans though then out of interest? I never see that many articles claiming it's from a different source... might be a welcoming change actually.

 

[Famine]

I came as far as thinking, deciding actually.. "yes, there is now enough evidence to assume that humans are contributing considerably"

Okay. We'll skip over whether you're accurate or not with this assumption and move to the next bit. Assuming that humans are contributing considerably, why are we supposed to legislate who can breed or not?

In assessing this question, please bear in mind that China - which has a population control program and has had it for many years - has the same birth rate as France - which does not - and the same increase in population from births and deaths alone as the USA - which also does not.

Why resort to a solution this bad then all of a sudden is your anwser? Well you haven't got an alternative other than trying though have you?

Why do I need an alternative?

Acting now - on an assumption that there's a problem, on the assumption we know what the cause is, on the assumption we know how to fix that cause, on the assumption that we know the fix will work - is considerably less important than acting properly. Sometimes there really is no right answer right now. This desire to do something, no matter how foolish, could be incredibly dangerous - in this case you're happy to blow away human rights on a string of assumptions with no basis.

Not having an alternative doesn't mean that your way is the right way.

But you're just refusing to think of something through your own systems and steps.
You're waiting for the proper solution wich might never come.
That won't be a reason for you guys to just sit around and do nothing, I can tell you that, because that what you're currently doing.

Am I? To me it looks like I'm trying to get you to stop making excuses for genocide in the vain hope it'll work, it'll fix the problem and that there's actually a problem in the first place - when we have no reason to assume any of these things.

I guess this all comes forth from a point of view where there is uncertainty on what is the real problem.
If you really don't believe the problem are human beings, I can understand your concern. Nothing worse than trying to solve it one way, and then discovering afterwards that the source came from something completely else.
I can understand the concern, it's a matter of opinion and belief I guess though how likely we think it is that it's going to be something else other than human cause.

Because in my opinion I'm already done with thinking lol. That is dangerous, I admit. But there is a point where I go blanc. I understand you though.
How likely do you think it is that it will be something else than humans though then out of interest? I never see that many articles claiming it's from a different source... might be a welcoming change actually.

Like every other explanation of global warming, I suspect that increased human population has an effect on the overall outcome. It's quite unclear, however, what that effect is and its magnitude. It's certainly not enough to warrant cries for legislated breeding and forced sterilisation.

 

[Danoff]

I guess this all comes forth from a point of view where there is uncertainty on what is the real problem.
If you really don't believe the problem are human beings, I can understand your concern. Nothing worse than trying to solve it one way, and then discovering afterwards that the source came from something completely else.
I can understand the concern, it's a matter of opinion and belief I guess though how likely we think it is that it's going to be something else other than human cause.

Because in my opinion I'm already done with thinking lol. That is dangerous, I admit. But there is a point where I go blanc. I understand you though.
How likely do you think it is that it will be something else than humans though then out of interest? I never see that many articles claiming it's from a different source... might be a welcoming change actually.

Maybe the answer is that human beings are causing the problem - but maybe it's something that population control won't fix. For example, perhaps the problem is that we dispose of too many condoms which are destroying the algae. Imagine how silly you'd feel if your eugenics resulted in more condom use which then in turn destroyed additional algae. See, even if human beings are causing the problem, we still need to understand just exactly how and then sit and think about what the best possible countermeasure is (if we decide that a countermeasure is necessary).

 

[Keef]

And let the government worry about it.

Or we could let real scientists work on it, ones that aren't influenced by special interests and government handouts. Government has much more important things to do, like not go bankrupt.

Oh, this is the environment thread, sorry lol.

 

[Niels]

There's no real reason to assume it's humans causing global warming? Other than the fact that it's 90% sure to be CO2 related, and that THATS the exact chemical we've been producing a lot nowadays?

I mean if that's true it's already there.
The temperature generates a direct response for oceanic temperatures. And algae population have been proven to be affected by it, so to speak. If we could talk about population at all. I'm just too used on using the word population now so I'll also use it for the algae anyway.

It's just questioning already known stuff really. Not that complicated stuff either.
You can research it again to be really sure. But it all began with questioning scientificall results as seen in the post above.

Maybe it's because it's just too much "right in your face" to be able to accept it perhaps.
If intelligent people are used to searching for results, it might actually be hard for us to accept something thats right in front of our nose now for once.
Could be, wouldn't be surprised by it.

I can understand all of your concern, but firstly I never mentioned genocide. It really started with near-genocide in a previous post honestly because you knew it was not meant like that, hence the "near". Then it became flat-out genocide in your latest. Blown out of proportion bigtime if you ask me. But makes me question why, could it make your arguement more credible or something as a reason why you're using genocide instead of birth controll. If it's birth controll at all.

It could just be educational awareness that there are actual risks involved in getting too many children. Getting people to think before they decide. Limit it to 3 instead of limitless. Wich would already be harsh.
The actual taboo on this subject showing here already gives enough reason to beleive that maybe even some general awareness about the subject could already be enough. At most actually reduce child support. That kind of thing could already be considered extreme. So let's not stick to that. Just pointing out the actual limits though.

Secondly it wouldn't be assuming at all. This stuff has been researched over and over again.
And talking about scientists with special interests is looking a lot like some kind of conspiracy theory now, honestly.

Then for the actual solution.
It won't do any harm though believe me on that. Nothing on earth is going to miss those extra humans. Don't overestimate yourself now.
This condom scenario is not actually going to happen, in case you believe that.
It's about the only scenario I can think of where it would be actually possible to still go all wrong. It's not possible realistically speaking, come on.

I'm happy it's not nearly yet "omg people this global warming is getting serious guys".
And you being like "global warming? Huh? There's no real reason to assume we're actually on a globe ". Truly now, it's starting to look like it though.

 

[Danoff]

There's no real reason to assume it's humans causing global warming? Other than the fact that it's 90% sure to be CO2 related, and that THATS the exact chemical we've been producing a lot nowadays?

90%? Do tell, where exactly did you get that number?

Maybe it's because it's just too much "right in your face" to be able to accept it perhaps.
If intelligent people are used to searching for results, it might actually be hard for us to accept something thats right in front of our nose now for once.

Whether it's being rammed down my throat doesn't actually affect my acceptance of it - despite a seemingly constant media bombardment. I like to see convincing data. The more that's at stake, the more convinced I need to be.

It could just be educational awareness that there are actual risks involved in getting too many children. Getting people to think before they decide. Limit it to 3 instead of limitless.

See, you're throwing out numbers without anything to back it up. If you look at Famine's numbers (and I think if you looked at the number of US households with more than 3 kids), I think you'd find that this is an absolutely useless response.

Nothing on earth is going to miss those extra humans.

Except the humans that can't raise them. Not being allowed to have a child is a big deal.

This condom scenario is not actually going to happen, in case you believe that.
It's about the only scenario I can think of where it would be actually possible to still go all wrong. It's not possible realistically speaking, come on.

It was an example to get you thinking. I'm well aware that it's not realistic. You think it's the only example I can come up with? It took me all of 10 seconds to come up with that. The idea was to get you to realize that there are ways that your seemingly perfect plan could seriously backfire in a way that you least expect.

This is why I recommend fully investigating not only the problem, but whether the problem must be solved, and the potential solutions. You seem to want to do none of those things.

 

[niky]

Getting people to think before they decide. Limit it to 3 instead of limitless.

The problem with population control is, again, selective breeding.

We have active population control programs in the third world... guess what's happening?

The upper class and middle class have less kids. They're prosperous, and educated enough to know that having just one or two kids (or three, at most) poses the least strain on their finances and on the "environment".

The lower class, bored, restless, unemployed, and with too much copulating (pardon the expression) time on their hands do nothing BUT breed.

What this iconic picture, which highlights the Great Depression and the problems of poverty singularly fails to show is the several other children not in frame... (true story)

In other words, active population control means we are now selectively breeding for unpersuadability, irresponsibility, poverty and unemployment. Great, huh?

Education, education, education. Make people smarter, more productive and less hungry, and there's less incentive to mill out babies, which many poor families rely upon as additional income earners in the third world.

Hordes of restless, unattached males.

Actually, yes. Eating embryo soup, too, I might add.

There's no real reason to assume it's humans causing global warming? Other than the fact that it's 90% sure to be CO2 related, and that THATS the exact chemical we've been producing a lot nowadays?

Oh, of course CO2 enables global warming. So does solar activity, poor cloud production due to the low-levels of cosmic rays, algae levels (funny that it's being shown as an effect... for a while, some scientists were pointing to it as a cause), the lack of volcanic activity, methane produced by naturally rotting vegetation and bovine stomachs (hey, let's stop eating beef and raising cows!), CO2 naturally released by animals, breathing humans, forest fires (I find it ironic that California's successful forestry conservation gives them rich swathes of forest that dump millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year as they burn to the ground), weather patterns and various other causes.

Clouds and the Earth's albedo are an interesting sidenote in all of this. Changes in global temperature due to sunspot activity have shown a much greater effect in slowing or reversing global warming than billions of dollars spent in legislating CO2 have.

Of course, we could remove legislations on sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions... which actually help cool the Earth in the same way that volcanic activity does. Never mind our poor lungs... it's for the good of the planet!

It's this kind of knee-jerk, unscientific thinking which started the whole CO2 hysteria. While some scientists and economists are cautioning that the net effect of such programs will not be proportionate to the money and effort poured into it, it's a popular platform that politicians use to gain power and money.

If we can't separate the science from the hype, and jump on each and every "solution" like it's "the one" (as a follower of biofuels and alternative energy news, this is so frustratingly common you'd wonder if investors had any brains at all... look, jatropha! Profit!), then we're spending billions in cash (and money is energy) on nothing.

And money doesn't grow on trees, you know.... wait... money is made from dead trees, isn't it?

 

[Joel]

The problem with the selective breeding, you say it's the only practical solution, but it really isn't all that practical either. Only more developed countries are going to be able to put it in place. Imagine if the G7 countries put on a 3 kid limit. What would be the effect on human population? Not nearly enough to consider such a blatant disregard for human rights.