Half of Earths Remaining Species - Including All Reefs - Extinct by 2050 - due to Climate Change

oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Climate change is the greatest global threat to coral reef ecosystems. Scientific evidence now clearly indicates that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are warming, and that these changes are primarily due to greenhouse gases derived from human activities.
.

www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/06/coral-reef-bleaching-global-warming-unesco-sites

Coral Reefs Could Be Gone in 30 Years . The world’s coral reefs, from the Great Barrier Reef off Australia to the Seychelles off East Africa, are in grave danger of dying out completely by mid-century unless carbon emissions are reduced enough to slow ocean warming, a new UNESCO study says.

www.globalcitizen.org...

Half of the Species on Earth Could Go Extinct by 2050. Half of Earth's species could go extinct by 2050 unless humanity addresses man-made climate change, according to biologists.
There have been five mass extinctions in the history of planet Earth. The most recent occurred 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs famously bit the dust. Now, studies suggest human beings are currently causing a sixth.

didn't realize it was that bad, that all coral and chocolate will go extinct by 2050. we're worst than a virus. scientifically speaking, humans are genetically modified apes, and we most all know GMOs have an 'unfair advantage'- until it comes back around. while we develop and overdevelop every square foot of land on the planet into towering skyscrapers immersed in fragile modern conveniences from phones to planes, global ecosystems we evolved to depend on for air, water, food, nutrients, medicine, etc are collapsing around us.

in face of such a global catastrophe, it is easiest to deny it is happening, altogether. or grasp a cliche such as everything goes extinct anyway or survival of the fittest.perhaps that is globalist corp's long term goal. transhumanistic geoengineering. out with the old, in with the new era of accelerated evolution. resistance is futile?

hopefully ats, this thread, and maybe even me, are still around in 2050 to reflect on..

They said this back in the Nineties ... about the Australian Barrier Reef.

It is still there.

Just another in a long list of failed predictions.

They can't even get tomorrows weather correct half the time.

But yeah, scream lies constantly and some people will fall for it.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

They said this back in the Nineties ... about the Australian Barrier Reef. It is still there.

and its actually growing and getting healthier.

a reply to: tulsi

NOAA/NASA are very good at making dire predictions that haven't come true.

CEI.ORG: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions (Thanks to 727Sky for the link.)

Is that you, Al Gore? More fake news.

a reply to: tulsi

You didn't get the memo?

We only have 18 months till the end of the world!

Sorry, 16 months now!

More fearporn

Co2 = Plant-food = Photosynthesis = Carbon Sinking

Research/trial in the Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, was published in last week's Science. It suggests that each atom of iron added to the sea could pull between 10,000 and 100,000 atoms of carbon out of the atmosphere by encouraging plankton growth, which captures carbon and sinks it deep towards the ocean floor (2004).

The U.N. seem petrified with iron seeding as some believe it’s so effective it could drop the temperature by as much as 15C

But this was discovered long ago and the U.N. seem to be keeping a lid on it

The U.N. being the most vocal about needing a green new deal, I smell a rat

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: pheonix358

They said this back in the Nineties ... about the Australian Barrier Reef. It is still there.

and its actually growing and getting healthier.

Not true. In fact, the condition of it was recently downgraded.

Canberra, Australia — The government agency that manages Australia's Great Barrier Reef has downgraded its outlook for the corals' condition from "poor" to "very poor" due to warming oceans. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's condition report, which is updated every five years, is the latest bad news for the 133,360-square-mile colorful coral network off the northeast Australian coast as climate change and coral bleaching take their toll.

A study of coral bleaching on the reef, published in the journal Nature in 2017, found 91% of the coral reef had been bleached at least once during three bleaching events of the past two decades, the most serious event occurring in 2016

The report is the agency's third and tracks continuing deterioration since the first in 2009. The deterioration in the reef's outlook mostly reflects the expanding area of coral killed or damaged by coral bleaching.

The United Nations' World Heritage Committee expressed concern about bleaching in 2017 and the report Thursday could lead to the World Heritage-listed natural wonder being reclassified by UNESCO next year as "in danger."

Link

a reply to: pheonix358

They said this back in the Nineties

Hades , they even said this back in the 70s .

a reply to: underwerks

the Australian government...labour or liberal.... LIE.... about everything...

Hell,... us Australians think our pollies are a joke....

just like the USA, UK, Canada.....

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: pheonix358

They said this back in the Nineties ... about the Australian Barrier Reef. It is still there.

and its actually growing and getting healthier.

Where did you hear that ?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: pheonix358

They said this back in the Nineties ... about the Australian Barrier Reef. It is still there.

and its actually growing and getting healthier.

If by growing and getting healthier, you mean 50% of it has died due to choral bleaching, then sure....

originally posted by: tri-lobe-1
a reply to: underwerks

the Australian government...labour or liberal.... LIE.... about everything...

Hell,... us Australians think our pollies are a joke....

just like the USA, UK, Canada.....

And they force all the marine biologists and groups that study the choral reef to tow the line, or it's the dark hole for 'em!!!!

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

from NASA

www.nasa.gov...

The earth has greened by 14 % due to CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is a fertilizer

As for the Great Barrier Reef... its death was greatly exaggerated (complete with death certificate). Come on - use some common sense. The reef as survived for the last 50,000 years. Do you really think it can be destroyed if the global average temperature increases by less than 1 %. Why wasn't it destroyed a long time ago when the seasons changed and the temperature swung up or down by tens of degrees?

There was a court case that just finished but is now under appeal. Peter Ridd was fired by James Cook University. He publically said the quality assurance in assessing the GBR and he was fired for it. The case has been heard and Peter Ridd won

wattsupwiththat.com...

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
More fearporn

Co2 = Plant-food = Photosynthesis = Carbon Sinking

Research/trial in the Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, was published in last week's Science. It suggests that each atom of iron added to the sea could pull between 10,000 and 100,000 atoms of carbon out of the atmosphere by encouraging plankton growth, which captures carbon and sinks it deep towards the ocean floor (2004).

The U.N. seem petrified with iron seeding as some believe it’s so effective it could drop the temperature by as much as 15C

But this was discovered long ago and the U.N. seem to be keeping a lid on it

The U.N. being the most vocal about needing a green new deal, I smell a rat

......And then O2 levels rising due to the bloom in plant growth and spread due to the rise in CO2. That leads to supersize me insects and critters like in the Permian period. I mean Im from the deep and dirty South.. so Ive seen mosquitoes as big as swallows, but Im pretty sure my GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGreat grandkids could face Giant 747 size Mothra critters and Bus size bite your whole head off Mantis, and cessna size mosquitoes. In order to prevent this we should probably start making everyone miserable, carbon tax the crap out of everything, and make sure there is ***NO*** O2 in the future. Its the only way to be sure.. and make the world a utopia for our ancestors.

And yet the reefs came back way faster than they expected.

a reply to: tulsi

Human activity has already caused mass extinctions with many other species near extinction.

I live in the Florida Keys and the bleaching is widespread, especially the upper keys. Also this year our 'King' tides have been extra high causing street flooding and some flooding of low lying homes and businesses. Each year they get a little higher.

You will face a lot of denial posting this here, but keep it up!

The predictions are a bit extreme, but it is clear human activity is causing mass ecological problems across the globe.

a reply to: tulsi

Rubbish - did you buy this climate script of Greta??????

originally posted by: tulsi
oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Climate change is the greatest global threat to coral reef ecosystems. Scientific evidence now clearly indicates that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are warming, and that these changes are primarily due to greenhouse gases derived from human activities.
.

www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/06/coral-reef-bleaching-global-warming-unesco-sites

Coral Reefs Could Be Gone in 30 Years . The world’s coral reefs, from the Great Barrier Reef off Australia to the Seychelles off East Africa, are in grave danger of dying out completely by mid-century unless carbon emissions are reduced enough to slow ocean warming, a new UNESCO study says.

www.globalcitizen.org...

Half of the Species on Earth Could Go Extinct by 2050. Half of Earth's species could go extinct by 2050 unless humanity addresses man-made climate change, according to biologists.
There have been five mass extinctions in the history of planet Earth. The most recent occurred 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs famously bit the dust. Now, studies suggest human beings are currently causing a sixth.

didn't realize it was that bad, that all coral and chocolate will go extinct by 2050. we're worst than a virus. scientifically speaking, humans are genetically modified apes, and we most all know GMOs have an 'unfair advantage'- until it comes back around. while we develop and overdevelop every square foot of land on the planet into towering skyscrapers immersed in fragile modern conveniences from phones to planes, global ecosystems we evolved to depend on for air, water, food, nutrients, medicine, etc are collapsing around us.

in face of such a global catastrophe, it is easiest to deny it is happening, altogether. or grasp a cliche such as everything goes extinct anyway or survival of the fittest.perhaps that is globalist corp's long term goal. transhumanistic geoengineering. out with the old, in with the new era of accelerated evolution. resistance is futile?

hopefully ats, this thread, and maybe even me, are still around in 2050 to reflect on..

Acceptance of ignorance is alive and well. Meaning denial as to the actual state of affairs of extinction seems to be a non-issue. But, not with me.

So, the other day I had this strange compulsion to do some simple math, I guess this topic is as good as any to post about it.

So, we are told that we need to plant trees to offset our carbon dioxide waste created in our daily lives.

This lead me to think for a bit, and look up how much forest a person would need to counteract their "carbon footprint".

So I went looking for a source for that information, and I found one, cited by the NYT.
www.nytimes.com...

The Environmental Protection Agency has calculated the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average car as of 2007 at about five metric tons, more than 11,000 pounds, so a single acre of woodlot would be countering the emissions of about 2.7 cars. For 40 acres, that would be about 109 cars.

5 tones * 2.7 = 13.5 tons
Ok, so this tells us that a single acre of wood land offsets 13.5 tons of CO2 emissions per year.

So now we have a basis from which to work with for offsetting CO2 emissions.

From this we need to find out how much we need to neutralize per person.
So much CO2 does a person give off on average per year?
data.worldbank.org...

The average in the US is 16.5 tons per year.
That is quite interesting.

So how much CO2 does the US produce per year?
www.epa.gov...-dioxide
According to this, the amount (via the chart) is 5,250 million tons per year, however it peaked around 6,000 million tons per year (2000-2007). Just to be safe, let us use that number instead.

So now, we know that the US needs to offset 6,000 million tons of CO2 emissions, and that an acre of land offsets 13.5 tons of CO2.

6,000 million tons/ 13.5 tons per acre = 444.5 million acres

So, the US needs 444.5 million acres of forest to offset it's CO2 emissions.
Now we need to look at how much forest the US actually has, luckily this information is available to us.
en.wikipedia.org...

United States 3,100,950 square km

So how many acres are in a square km?
www.thecalculatorsite.com...

1 square km = ~247 acres

So we need to multiply the square kilometers of forest land by 247 to get acres.

3,100,950 km * 247 = 765,934,650‬ acres of forest in the US.

That can't be right can it?

The US needs 444.5 million acres of forest to offset it's carbon dioxide emissions, but has 765.9 million acres of forest.

That would mean that the US has 321.4 million excess acres of forest to offset it's CO2 emissions, or enough to offset an additional 4,338.9 million tons of CO2 emissions.

So the US is Carbon Dioxide negative, and greatly so.
But then why do we need to pay for our CO2 emissions through taxes?!?