Climate change report predicts end of human civilisation and climate apocalypse could start by 2050

DeleteriousObnoxious said:
Hello its your daily doomsday bell, just here to inform you that Permafrost is melting in Canadian Arctic, 70 years before estimated.
Remember the Positive Feedback Loop?? this is it we are done. The article of 2050 seems pretty spot on if not a bit to reserved.

www.theguardian.com

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I think all these model projections are underestimating global warming. There is a vicious cycle thats about to be unleashed. We need to use ACs even more to cope with GW. We Will need more electricity. We Will pollute more in the short to medium term. GW is exacerbated.
 
Last edited:
womfalcs3 said:
I think all these model projections are underestimating global warming. There is a vicious cycle thats about to be unleashed. We need to use ACs even more to cope with GW. We Will need more electricity. We Will pollute more in the short to medium term. GW is exacerbated.
Click to expand...
Exactly which is why we are in a climate crisis. And people refusing This are climate science deniers.

And the global is heating, not warming we are already in heat.
 
Last edited:
As someone who's spent most of their life observing people, here are some things I noticed

So many people are just too preoccupied with their own lives that something that isn't harming them immediately won't matter at all. Simple human nature. The guy who has to work his ass off to provide for his family won't be thinking about the effects of climate change, because he cant "see" or "feel" it. Only when it's too late will those type of people care.

Then ofc you have the doomsayers, who are smart and educated, but have just lost all hope for any future.

We need a lot of campaigning to get people to realise climate change is a problem, or a group of scientists, professors and engineers designing a solution to our problem.
 
The part of the climate change argument I take most issue with isn't regarding measurement; the argument of "More carbon in air = we getting hotter" is a fine one.

I do, however find it very dishonest when the alarmism focuses on industrial output of carbon, as if turning first world production "off" would even remotely solve the issue. I could easily get on board with eventual full scale modernized nuclear for baseline power + renewables (hydro, solar, wind where applicable). So, that's all well and good for a developed country. If there was a political will (there isn't) for it, and an honest effort to remove all of the red tape around nuclear energy (there isn't), there's no reason it couldn't be made to happen within 5 years.

But then what to do with everyone else? You're never going to get Nigeria, or India, or Indonesia, or whichever other populous developing country of your choice to do anything meaningful to curb their emissions in the very short (as in now) timeframe given by our current day alarmists. Also, that is only focusing on the belief that our measurables are even correct. Does anyone actually know what each country produces, in reality? I would say no. I doubt very much that most countries in the world even know how many people they really have. The US doesn't even know how many we have, we just take a census, and estimate the rest.
 
Ornlu said:
The part of the climate change argument I take most issue with isn't regarding measurement; the argument of "More carbon in air = we getting hotter" is a fine one.

I do, however find it very dishonest when the alarmism focuses on industrial output of carbon, as if turning first world production "off" would even remotely solve the issue. I could easily get on board with eventual full scale modernized nuclear for baseline power + renewables (hydro, solar, wind where applicable). So, that's all well and good for a developed country. If there was a political will (there isn't) for it, and an honest effort to remove all of the red tape around nuclear energy (there isn't), there's no reason it couldn't be made to happen within 5 years.

But then what to do with everyone else? You're never going to get Nigeria, or India, or Indonesia, or whichever other populous developing country of your choice to do anything meaningful to curb their emissions in the very short (as in now) timeframe given by our current day alarmists. Also, that is only focusing on the belief that our measurables are even correct. Does anyone actually know what each country produces, in reality? I would say no. I doubt very much that most countries in the world even know how many people they really have. The US doesn't even know how many we have, we just take a census, and estimate the rest.
Click to expand...
We actually do know emissions, well the official reported ones.



Notice how long time USA is leading the race.
 
Last edited:
You posted a video of CO2 emissions sliced up by country. The dividing by countries would be based on estimates, not reality. Especially when it's based on a per capita basis, and most countries don't know how many people they have.
 
Ornlu said:
You posted a video of CO2 emissions sliced up by country. The dividing by countries would be based on estimates, not reality. Especially when it's based on a per capita basis, and most countries don't know how many people they have.
Click to expand...
Its not really that hard you see we just take reports from energy companies to figure out how much has been used we do not need to know what each individual person uses. If they are part of the country they use the suppliers installed so all data should be relatively straight forward. I do not see your issue with the way the data is collected.
 
So if there is currently 9-10 billion people living on the planet, rather than the 7.7 billion current estimate, that doesn't contribute toward the heating of the planet?
 
Ornlu said:
So if there is currently 9-10 billion people living on the planet, rather than the 7.7 billion current estimate, that doesn't contribute toward the heating of the planet?
Click to expand...
If there currently is 9-10 billion people instead of 7 billion then the numbers are not accurate. However the energy used will still be mostly accurate due to data given by the respectable services. Gas/electricity/oil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Could humanity ever reverse entropy?
2
64
1K
Toots replied
Climate activists spray Stonehenge with orange powder
2
92
6K
Alebrije replied
Groundbreaking Findings on the Giza Pyramid Complex Could Re-Write Human History
2 3 4 5 6
267
17K
Trogdor1123 replied
Biggest tech trend of each decade and predictions?
9
487
lachesis replied
High-End Headphone help
15
625
Xeela_sunston replied
Top Bottom