DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Just not this time predictions has always sounded true on climate science.
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Climate change report predicts end of human civilisation and climate apocalypse could start by 2050
- Thread starter Falcs
- Start date
womfalcs3
Banned
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.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.
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 fearedwww.theguardian.com
Last edited:
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
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:
sevoro
Member
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.
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.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Some visualization:
gizmodo.com
And the one in stribes:
showyourstripes.info
One of the Most Convincing Climate Change Visualizations We've Ever Seen
But we had so much snow this winter! But it’s only a couple degrees! But the temperature in my hometown feels fine! We’ve heard it all from climate change
gizmodo.com
And the one in stribes:
Show Your Stripes
Visualising how the climate has changed for every country across the globe
Ornlu
Banned
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.
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.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
We actually do know emissions, well the official reported ones.
Notice how long time USA is leading the race.
Last edited:
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
What part of above wasn't covered. In my reply??
Last edited:
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
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.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
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
Eiknarf
Banned
Jeeeez:
N.Y. lawmakers agree to historic climate plan
www.eenews.net
N.Y. lawmakers agree to historic climate plan
E&E News: N.Y. lawmakers agree to historic climate plan
<p>Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said yesterday he has reached an agreement with legislative leaders over a bill to slash New York's greenhouse gas emissions, setting the stage for one of the most significant climate victories since President Trump took office.</p>