Home | About | Donate

New Study Warns 5 Billion People Could Face Higher Risk of Climate-Related Coastal Storms, Water Pollution, and Crop Losses by 2050

But we do need to go to a war-like footing, with all and perhaps more of the strictures of WW II Paul.

The Green New Deal is supposed to be the way out - I am not so sure. Actually I am rather sure it won’t work, but that war-like footing might.

@DavidCarson had this to say in post 7:

"It’s ironic that population biologists have been saying for years that the human species total population is way too high, by about 5 billion. No way this beleaguered biosphere can support 7+ billion, especially if everybody wants a technoindustrial lifestyle."

I agree with this - 2.5 billion, give or take - sustainable maybe - unless we go to space for the resources there.

I am not sure if this is the place to make suggestions - it seems it is, so I’ll mention my own thoughts, which are impressions from a long life:

  • Space the children out five years apart, the nomadic average apparently, give or take.
  • Breast feed on demand three years, give or take. I would be interested how this suggestion goes over? Rather like a lead balloon I suspect, until you stop and think it through.
  • Think like a citizen - not a consumer - enough and not more will suffice for now and until we get over the hump.
  • E Pluribus Unum might just apply now more than ever, perhaps, if it is a good idea, it will spread.
1 Like

Say Seal !

James Hansen coined the term “The Mercer Effect” (the quote of yours above)

John Mercer was an iconoclastic scientist way back, and suggested that the Antarctic Ice Sheet, the West Antarctic portion, which is the only submarine ice sheet left on Earth, might go rather quickly in geologic terms unless we did something about CO2 and other greenhouse gases. He was marginalized - and James Hansen was eventually forced out of his position as well, decades later. Trump is carrying on with this tradition, moving, marginalizing or firing outright any scientists who threaten business as usual.

I’m a geologist, and I have read the original reports by these Russian and other scientists on Arctic methane. The potential is there for a runaway, but it is deemed unlikely any time soon, as far as I can understand. One thing that is rarely mentioned is the increased risk of earthquakes from the destabilization being caused by rising sea level. These can produce rather dramatic undersea landslides, and if these occur in an area laced with methane clathrates, a much larger burp than these plumes would result, more or less instantaneously. But this is still not enough to put us in imminent danger, best guess of the scientists.

What is more worrying to me is the present situation in DC. Unless we can find a way to again ‘do the right thing’, as opposed to play politics - we will lose hope, and then our scientists and universities, and then we will indeed be in trouble. There are four hundred nuclear plants to decommission, and I don’t know how much high level waste in cooling pools to be safely stored - and we don’t really know how to do this, more than a half century after we unleashed the nuclear genie.

Angela Merkel recently said “Politics is what is possible”.

OK - what is possible?

Can Bernie get elected President ?

1 Like

Yep, I remember the name from way back. Been reading climate since the early 70s, a book on Greenhouse…environment even earlier with Carson and others.

I have no idea what I said, though. Edge of precipice maybe? I keep looking down trying to figure out if what I read this week puts my toes over the edge, or my heels off the edge…so I don’t need to steal a quote to think that way! It’s all right there scary as life. Can you look down and tell me which? :slight_smile:


Probably not Seal.

As always, opinions differ, and what people are willing to say, or think they should or shouldn’t say - plays in all this.

For me the most compelling thoughts come from Peter Ward, a paleontologist expert on mass extinctions, and the climate scientist he interviewed to end his book (2007), “Under a Green Sky”.

The idea was, as I read it - that the human beings we are - probably wouldn’t do what is necessary to avert another Greenhouse Mass Extinction Event.

These are uncharted waters - there are no historical precedents in human experience. Even our genus, Homo - is an Ice Age product. Massive swings in climate - we survived them all, and in the end, we were the sole survivors of what look like more than a few of our contemporaries in those times.

This is different - totally, with CO2 already at levels over 400 ppm. That level hasn’t been seen on Earth for millions of years, and in the geological wink of an eye - here we are.

I just heard two older men in the coffee shop this am discussing the Bible - and for them it was in fact the Word of God. How many more like them are part of the 7.8 billion humans now on Earth ?

This discussion is indecipherable to all but a few percent now living.

But I do think this - we do have the ability to turn this around. That’s important I would think.

Maybe it’s best, knowing this, to just have confidence that we will react with all speed at some point.

Awareness is growing, perhaps even exponentially - and that is encouraging if true.

Don’t worry.Goldman/Sachs and other banksters will save us with a myriad of opaque financial schemes

A friend of mine is a Captain of one of the NOAA vessels and he would corroborate your excellent post.

Sure looks that way to me. We have the blind and the greedy leading us to extinction!

1 Like

Not to mention all the methane from cow farts around the world in those horrific factory farms!!!

1 Like

Oh Darn. Robert Hunziker the climate blogger throws another full-force punch to our heads this morning:

Methane SOS


Do something fun every day. Ya know?


1 Like

Hi manysummits: I believe Bernie can win if the DEMS don’t result to tampering again.: (

1 Like