‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming to an End’ Starting in 2050 According to a report from Australia as reported by Vice

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 4, 2004
12,790
941
146
#26
Human activity is responsible for a few mm of sea level rise at this point...
Sure globally it’s mm/year but the Earth isn’t a flat plate sitting on your table that’s had a few extra drops of water dripped on it.

Thanks to thermal expansion, melting ice, and the slowing of the Gulf Stream causes water to backup around the East Coast. Those areas have seen sea level rise of 5 inches over 2011-2015 or an inch per year

https://e360.yale.edu/features/flooding-hot-spots-why-seas-are-rising-faster-on-the-u.s.-east-coast

Drastic increases in coastal flooding is occurring all over the East Coast.



Nice of you to admit though that Al Gore was right about sea level rise. ;)
 
Jun 19, 2006
18,187
713
136
#27
I think many of us here agree that overpopulation doesn't help and is a very serious issue that's never bought up anymore. Back in the 70s it was talked about a lot.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#28
I think many of us here agree that overpopulation doesn't help and is a very serious issue that's never bought up anymore. Back in the 70s it was talked about a lot.

I've said it here before and I'll say it again. This is the much, much bigger issue. All these measures to cut energy use are laughable. Even if we could cut our energy use and pollution output by, say a lofty goal of 1/3, what does that mean for the planet in 70-80 years when we have 12 billion people?
 
Feb 15, 2002
13,659
619
126
#29
I've said it here before and I'll say it again. This is the much, much bigger issue. All these measures to cut energy use are laughable. Even if we could cut our energy use and pollution output by, say a lofty goal of 1/3, what does that mean for the planet in 70-80 years when we have 12 billion people?
And the Republicans answer is to limit abortion as much as possible? Seems like sound reasoning to me.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#30
Sure globally it’s mm/year but the Earth isn’t a flat plate sitting on your table that’s had a few extra drops of water dripped on it.

Thanks to thermal expansion, melting ice, and the slowing of the Gulf Stream causes water to backup around the East Coast. Those areas have seen sea level rise of 5 inches over 2011-2015 or an inch per year

https://e360.yale.edu/features/flooding-hot-spots-why-seas-are-rising-faster-on-the-u.s.-east-coast

Drastic increases in coastal flooding is occurring all over the East Coast.



Nice of you to admit though that Al Gore was right about sea level rise. ;)

Sorry, but to have any kind of picture of what is going on we'd need real data from centuries, not a handful of decades. And I don't mean ice samples or drilled rock, etc. We're still coming out of an ice age, when you look at the long time scale.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#31
And the Republicans answer is to limit abortion as much as possible? Seems like sound reasoning to me.

Don't conflate issues. Over population and whether or not a fetus / unborn baby has a right to life are not the same thing.
 
Jan 8, 2010
14,324
313
126
#32
We're Doomed, Now What?

I read this recently. Honestly I can't say he's wrong. I look at clogged freeways, I see all these people even in liberal haven where I live who aren't alarmist and I have to think we're screwed, at least in terms of sustaining the planet anything like what we're used to. The mass extinction is going on willy nilly. I read that one too. I hate to be a pessimist in my old age because I know it's such a cliche. I grew up an optimist, it's hard to shake, but if you are optimistic now I think you have your head in the sand.

The Republicans, I hear that they are climate change deniers across the board with one possible exception, being Kovich. He acknowleges the problem but doesn't see any way of doing anything. Given his position, you can see that as defeatism in the face of the recalcitrance of his party.
I think that is the overall problem, even those who acknowledge it have no real idea how to fix it. No amount of 'we need to do this' is going to fly with the world until something catastrophic happens. Anyone who thinks that 'just a little bit at a time' or 'flip a switch and stop doing that' are both out of their minds. Both of them could be done and help in varying ways, but good luck getting the US on board let alone the whole world. Money's money, and that's all anyone who actually has power to make changes cares about. Millions of us peons could live like hippies, but that's not reality either. The majority of us like our comfort.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,790
941
146
#33
I think many of us here agree that overpopulation doesn't help and is a very serious issue that's never bought up anymore. Back in the 70s it was talked about a lot.
I've said it here before and I'll say it again. This is the much, much bigger issue. All these measures to cut energy use are laughable. Even if we could cut our energy use and pollution output by, say a lofty goal of 1/3, what does that mean for the planet in 70-80 years when we have 12 billion people?
The trick is to use more energy (carbon neutral only) to reduce poverty so birth rates fall drastically relieving pressure for even more energy, food, and land. Reducing populations allows undeveloped areas like rainforests to recover locking up CO2 and reversing die offs. Global GDP can continue to increase with fewer richer people vs the 12B poorer people of your method.

Sorry, but to have any kind of picture of what is going on we'd need real data from centuries, not a handful of decades. And I don't mean ice samples or drilled rock, etc. We're still coming out of an ice age, when you look at the long time scale.
Lol as if we need that data to prove sea level from climate change causing more flooding of cities built in the last couple of centuries.

You refuse to continue. I win.
 

ondma

Senior member
Mar 18, 2018
389
109
61
#34
Even if that were true (in the way you're trying to claim, which it isn't), that's nothing compared to the trillions the fossil fuel industry has made doing what you're allegedly so hysterical about Gore over. Hell, Bush and Cheney made more than that alone. But hey, don't be a hypocrite or anything.
Ever see Gore's house? How much energy do you think that bad boy uses?
 

ondma

Senior member
Mar 18, 2018
389
109
61
#35
We love to act like the end of the world is coming. Things are being done. More things will be done over the next 30 years. Technology is progressing. By 2050 I will be shocked if there are any combustion engine cars on the road. That is a big help to the environment. Next will be the retirement of coal plants over the course of the next 30 years. Manufacturing converting to electric or natural gas. Ect ect. Will we be free and clear by 2050? No, but we will be progressing towards massive reductions in Co2 emissions. I think the big thing in the next 100 years will be Co2 capture and storage. Which have the potential to reverse our effects on the atmosphere.
I like your optimism, compared the the "sky is falling" panic that some climate change advocates are promoting. I dont deny that climate change is a very serious problem, but I just cant buy into the "we are doomed by xxxx year date." I just dont think the data is that solid, and there are too many variables that could arise between now and whatever date that could postpone it or, hell, even make it come earlier. And if the 2050 or 10 years or whatever hand wringers are correct, we are pretty much fucked anyway, because the best we could do is postpone it a few years.
 
Jun 23, 2004
27,525
650
126
#36
Lol as if we need that data to prove sea level from climate change causing more flooding of cities built in the last couple of centuries.

You refuse to continue. I win.
He's using the "I see it but it is natural" play book.

It's a powerful act of denial. I mean, the most recent interglacial had Sea Levels 20-30 feet higher than today. So why shouldn't a rise of that much happen again, why shouldn't that sort of heat and melting be perfectly 100% natural THIS time around?

One must examine the totality of Global Warming.
  1. From the build up of CO2 molecules
  2. To the increased radiative forcing
  3. To the massive energy build up in the ocean
  4. To the new era of temperature measurements every Super El'Nino.
It is the totality of the context and circumstances that drive the truth of this subject. The preponderance of evidence. And they cannot absorb that in a sound bite. They have to be willing to listen and not claim science is all a giant conspiracy or that science is just stupid for not perfectly answering every little bit of minutia down to the billionth decimal.
 
Last edited:

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
5,163
195
136
#37
Read the original paper (if you want to call it that @ 11 pages) - this is akin to a Freshman research paper, and a purposefully hyperbolic one at that. Anyway, I did like this reference “Prof. Kevin Anderson makes the case for a Marshall Plan-style construction of zero-carbon-dioxide energy supply and major electrification to build a zero-carbon industrial strategy by “a shift in productive capacity of society akin to that in World War II”. Forget 'infrastructure project', we need a more urgent, hyperscaled response than that. Any massive electrification build out is going to need next gen (MSR) nuclear energy , other green technologies cannot support the high worldwide base load energy requirements. ...steps off soapbox.

Edit to add, if our leaders, media outlets and schools don’t do a better jobs highlighting the necessity of action, the current generations will impart unending human suffering for millennia to come. And, it will have been preventable.
 
Last edited:
Jun 4, 2004
12,790
941
146
#38
He's using the "I see it but it is natural" play book.

It's a powerful act of denial. I mean, the most recent interglacial had Sea Levels 20-30 feet higher than today. So why shouldn't a rise of that much happen again, why shouldn't that sort of heat and melting be perfectly 100% natural THIS time around?

One must examine the totality of Global Warming.
  1. From the build up of CO2 molecules
  2. To the increased radiative forcing
  3. To the massive energy build up in the ocean
  4. To the new era of temperature measurements every Super El'Nino.
It is the totality of the context and circumstances that drive the truth of this subject. The preponderance of evidence. And they cannot absorb that in a sound bite. They have to be willing to listen and not claim science is all a giant conspiracy or that science is just stupid for not perfectly answering every little bit of minutia down to the billionth decimal.
Good summation. :beermug:
 
Jul 11, 2001
21,665
282
126
#40

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS