Climate change may end human civilization by 2050

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jimbo11, Jun 4, 2019.

  1. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes we know, the religious right believe Jesus will save them and the rest of us will be left behind - who needs science
     
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Things are looking great as far as climate but I'll agree in overall pollution things look pretty dismal. Unfortunately too many people are fixated and obsessed on a hypothesis that fails test after test to go after real pollution and polluters. In fact real environmental degradation is increasing in response to the AGW hysteria.
     
  3. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could be, I have no idea what they think and really don't care.
     
  4. MB74

    MB74 Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2019
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    8
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ocean levels have gone up less than 6 inches in over 100 years.
     
  8. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let me get this straight: You're saying that as long as any amount of CO2 is being generated by humans, temperatures will continue to rise? This includes farming and raising cattle? Think about this before you answer!
     
  9. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cattle no, they have mostly only replaced other ruminant species. Bovine or bison, makes no difference.

    Yes to farming, logging, mining, concrete, oil, natural gas, coal, biomass. All of our modern conveniences are dependent on these practices, even solar, wind, and nuclear. Removing fossil fuels from the equation does not solve the problem of increasing concentrations of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
     
  10. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One notices that 'The Sky is Falling' Leftists and their bought and paid for alarmist 'scientists' periodically move the doomsday scenario climate clock back by decades whenever their previous 'We are all gonna die!" date drifts past. Gosh . . . it's almost as if they don't know what they are talking about.
     
    roorooroo and Josephwalker like this.
  11. Jimbo11

    Jimbo11 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2015
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hope u don't have grandchildren....I DO!
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They will enjoy the greater growth of plant life due to elevated CO2.
     
  13. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't understand the problem and the dynamics. Farming and biomass aren't problems. Both sequester CO2 today as the crop grows, and then they just release the same CO2 back into the air a little later when the crop is used. Net zero change. Same with cattle.

    The problem comes with wholesale elimination of forests but cutting and burning them to create communities and for farming, which sequesters far less than the forest did, ... and of course fossil fuels, which sequestered the CO2 eons ago and are now releasing it all within a century or two. So removing a majority of the fossil fuels from the equation brings the generation of CO2 back into the sustainable range at which the earth can handle it naturally. IOW there is a point at which our CO2 generation from fossil fuels is manageable by natural processes.
     
  14. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Attached Files:

  15. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we have to be resigned to continuing co2 emissions
    But does that mean that we cannot pursue any mitigation strategies?
    Dies that jean that we must rely upon coal fo the majority of our electricity generation
    Does that mean we cannot transition to electric cars?
    Or that we cannot have more gas car efficiency?
    Does that mean we cannot have mor efficient water heaters and better insulated houses?

     
  16. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we cannot entirely solve a problem, must we therefore shrug and give up?
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
  17. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That says it all, really. The politically corrupt upper level hierarchy of the DNC know that Climate Change is a leftist scam but they also KNOW that the average Dem Party voter and lower level DNC operatives are unaware of that truth. Finally they KNOW that if a climate change presidential debate were allowed to be held then all the totally whacko 'beliefs' of generic leftists would be on full display to the entire world WHILE Trump laughs his rump off while tweeting about it.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  19. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skeptics (and your) arguments focus on either very small time frames.... 2-3 years, or very long time frames

    No one claims any climate variable changes smoothly over short terms.... any more than a stock market is typified by absolutely smooth price changes. If we look though the historical record it would be shocking if we were unable to find a 2-3 year period that was against the long term trend. And everyone including skeptics agree that the long term trend is rising sea levels. The question being discussed is whether the rate of sea level change is changing due to human impacts. And THAT question can only be addressed by looking at a period of time that includes before and after..... 1850 to present

    Time Scales of 10s of thousands of years are certainly interesting. And they do tell us about natural variability. And these scales do confirm that current sea levels have occurred “naturally”. But knowing that something can occur naturally does not tell us whether it IS NOW OCCURRING ENTIRELY NATURALLY. A person WILL die naturally... but that fact does not inform us whether the persons death was in fact natural. Every one who died in WWII certainly would have died naturally.... but the vast majority of those people did not die naturally.

    You cannot assert that because something CAN AND COMMONLY DOES happen naturally.... that therefore if it happens, it happens because of natural processes.

    It is indisputable that there are natural processes that drive climate. And so, if humanity survives long enough, we will certainly have to deal with natural climate warming or cooling.

    And, i would argue, if we are now dealing with NATURAL climate change on the scale that data suggests.... then we need to figure out ways to adapt. And imo, part of that adaptation would be to identify ways that we can mitigate dangerous climate change (whether its cause is partly human, or entirely natural)

    Aside from the issue of human causation of climate change, skeptics seem to be convinced as an a priori truth that mankind is unable to impact climate.... so we should not even try. As a matter of fact, it seems that skeptics even oppose research that might lead us to discover ways of changing the climate in case we discover that it is moving is a concerning direction
     
  20. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "And THAT question can only be addressed by looking at a period of time that includes before and after..... 1850 to present"

    And therein lies the problem with every AGW argument. It includes the LIA and comes to the conclusion we are now warming at an increased rate based largely on that very cold era.

    Now as far as your second assertion,
    "skeptics even oppose research that might lead us to discover ways of changing the climate in case we discover that it is moving is a concerning direction"

    Are you serious? You really think man should purposely or even could purposely control climate if he wanted to? That explains a lot about you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2019
  21. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science is wonderful. It tells us that AGW is a hoax.
     
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeah, sure that flat earthers believe that
     
  23. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct, he doesn't... but neither do you.

    Correct.

    Yup, crop and cattle are just fine.

    Forests are not being eliminated. Loggers do not want them to be eliminated... They want as many trees as possible, because that is how they make their money.

    We don't use fossils for fuel; they don't burn very well. Oil and natural gas are not environmental issues; they form naturally underground. CO2 forms naturally in the atmosphere.

    It is already sustainable, and will continue to be sustainable. There is no "crisis"...

    AGW is a hoax. Logic, science, and mathematics all provide evidence and proof of such hoax.
     
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't care what flat earthers believe; their beliefs are irrelevant to this thread.
     
  25. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're the one making false claims.

    The facts and recent history of the Amazon rain forest and in other S.A. countries contradicts you. You must have thought I was referring to the USA. Climate change is a worldwide problem with worldwide causes.

    Why are you being silly?

    Yes and so burning them is an environmental issue.

    I'll believe the scientific data.

    No they don't. You're in a fringe minority.
     

Share This Page