• 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.

Atmospheric concentration of CO2 reaches 410 PPM

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there anyway to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?

There are two ways really.

One, sucking it out of the atmosphere, which is really really expensive.

Two, putting it back into the ground before it reaches the atmosphere, which is what is currently being searched in terms of Carbon Capture. Basically, instead of CO2 being dumped from a gas plant, the CO2 is shot into the ground in some form or another, preventing it from reaching the atmosphere.

Realistically, it might be a combination of those two and secret option C, shooting a bunch of "something" into the atmosphere to brute force hack planet wide cooling. Not sexy, but it's being looked into and is a really "cheap" option in terms of "reversing" (something it's not doing because CO2 is still in the atmosphere, but it's just a simple way to put it) global warming.
 

ZSaberLink

Media Create Maven
That's the ironic part about saying things like "Save the planet". I feel like if people actually phrased it like "save the human race", it'd be harder to be against it...

And about the world trying to make progress on it, it's somewhat reassuring that countries like India & China are putting a lot of effort into renewables and so forth, as they realize the problems pollution and global warming cause and in China's case, are sick of suffering from it. Ironically that's what got the US to think about how we alter our environment back in the 70s (LA smog, etc.), but it seems like people forgot somehow..
 
As people have said, there are and this article does an overview: http://e360.yale.edu/features/can_pulling_carbon_from_air_make_a_difference_on_climate

But really it is not going to be a viable strategy any time soon. It may be a decade or more until we can pull 1 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere and store it some place. Compare this to the 40 or so billion tons we emit every year, currently. So, lowering our emissions and clean energy along with investing in infrastructure to prepare cities for devastating effects should be the highest priority.

Oh we should definitely be lowering our emissions as well, but I was just reading this:

BECCS - Wiki

And it estimates that it'll only cost $6 trillion to reach below 350ppm by 2100, Why aren't we already doing this?
 
COP 21?

Three years of flat emissions growth?

China's emissions stalling out and falling, falling well below previous estimates?

I don't know, actual data and stuff that show improvement in terms of world wide install rate of renewables and how fast it's displacing conventional fuel.

But as long as the issue isn't completely solved, it's just easy to say nothing has been done, because you don't actually see results until we're far along in the process.


The thing is that we are doing way less than we should be doing.

Here is a rather conservative roadmap of what we should be doing.
Note: This wouldn't avoid devastating climate change effects, but it would lessen their impact.

2017-2020: All countries would prepare for the herculean task ahead by laying vital policy groundwork. Like: scrapping the $500 billion per year in global fossil fuel subsidies. Zeroing out investments in any new coal plants, even in countries like India and Indonesia. All major nations commit to going carbon-neutral by 2050 and put in place policies — like carbon pricing or clean electricity standards — that point down that path. ”By 2020," the paper adds, ”all cities and major corporations in the industrialized world should have decarbonization strategies in place."

2020-2030: Now the hard stuff begins! In this decade, carbon pricing would expand to cover most aspects of the global economy, averaging around $50 per ton (far higher than seen almost anywhere today) and rising. Aggressive energy efficiency programs ramp up. Coal power is phased out in rich countries by the end of the decade and is declining sharply elsewhere. Leading cities like Copenhagen are going totally fossil fuel free. Wealthy countries no longer sell new combustion engine cars by 2030, and transportation gets widely electrified, with many short-haul flights replaced by rail.

In addition, spending on clean energy research increases by ”an order of magnitude" this decade, with a sustained focus on developing new batteries, drastically reducing the cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS), and perfecting low-carbon processes for producing steel and concrete, plus improving smart grids, greener aircraft systems, and sustainable urbanization techniques.

Meanwhile, efforts to start pulling carbon dioxide out of the air start this decade. That means reforesting degraded land and deploying technologies such as direct-air capture or bioenergy with CCS to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. By 2030, we'd need to be removing 100 to 500 megatons of CO2 each year and have a sense of how to scale up.

2030-2040: By this decade, hopefully, we're reaping the fruits of major technological advances in clean energy. Leading countries like Denmark and Sweden should now have completely carbon-free grids and have electrified virtually all of their transport, heating, and industry. Cars with internal combustion engines ”will have become rare on roads worldwide." (Let that sink in.) Aircraft will be almost entirely powered by carbon-neutral fuels, say, biofuels or hydrogen. New building construction will be largely carbon-neutral, by using emissions-free methods for steel and concrete or through other techniques. And ”radical new energy generation solutions will enter the market."

Meanwhile, we'd need to be sucking about 1 to 2 gigatons of CO2 from the air each year, with a heavy R&D effort on expanding that further.

2040-2050: By the early 2040s, major European countries are close to carbon-neutral, and the rest of the world is moving toward that goal by the end of the decade. Electricity grids are nearly entirely carbon-free: ”Natural gas still provides some back up energy, but CCS ensures its carbon footprint is limited. Modular nuclear reactors may contribute to the energy mix in some places." Lower-income countries are still using some fossil fuels, and the world is still emitting a small bit of CO2 in 2050 (about one-eighth the amount of today), but work continues on eventually phasing that out.

Finally, by 2050, we'd need to be removing more than 5 gigatons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere. It's possible this is simply impractical — if we tried to do that all by burning biomass for energy and sequestering the resulting carbon (a ”negative emissions" process), we might well run into serious land constraints that hinder agriculture. If, in the 2020s, we realize this will be the case, then we'll have to revamp the road map to cut CO2 emissions from energy and industry even faster.
Screen_Shot_2017_03_22_at_6.02.30_PM.png
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/23/15028480/roadmap-paris-climate-goals
 
The thing is that a lot of countries, even ones who claim to be doing shit & are part of the Paris agreement, are failing to achieve any kind of noticeable or good enough results. Even if they have much-lauded attempts to switch to cleaner energy etc., the fact is we aren't seeing much change to better when other stuff might be offsetting it. I.e. Finland is building a lot of renewable energy and we've had a bit of a vegan food breakthrough within the last 1-2 years, but last year we produced a record amount of meat and we are cutting our woods like there is no tomorrow and using massive shittons of peat from swamps etc. So for every step forward we take at least a step or two back and the situation is pretty much +/-0. The situation is basically this:


The red line is reality due to us not doing much and increased forest cuts causing less CO2 to be swallowed, blue line is what our government is claiming their (non)actions are doing and green is what it should be.

Okay and? I get what the current status is.

That doesn't set anything in stone. We're all still alive and change can still come!

And somehow you don't think your belligerence comes off as smug and arrogant? Surely you at least see the irony at yelling that "you do not know the future" while stating that we will for sure solve the problem...

So it's wrong with me trying to tell people to believe in hope that a solution to this can still be found?

I'm trying to lift people's spirits and posters like you seem to trying to purposely bring others down like that's the right thing to do.
 

cameron

Member
I'm only 21. I have no choice but to look towards the future. So I'm not gonna just take it when I see some posts saying that we're all gonna be wiped out in about half a century from now just because of this one administration.

I want to get a girlfriend and get married. I want to have children. Can you imagine how much it irritates me when I hear people in these threads saying NOT to do the latter like the future's 100% set in stone?

I'm choosing not to believe in that bleak future, and living my life to the best I can, doing my part in the climate change fight in any way I can.

I want other people to feel the same way, no matter what the news says. That's why I speak up in these threads and get angry. I'm trying to ignite some ray of hope amidst all this despair that everyone's feeling.

I believe that humans will find a solution to climate change. Maybe not now, maybe not next year or ten years after, but eventually we'll find a solution.

That doesn't mean I don't feel scared about climate change. I do. But I can't let that fear affect how I communicate with others. Both IRL and online.

So if anything, I sure as hell won't be contributing to the despair in these threads.
You're a good dude (I mean this sincerely).

We're just being dicks for a laugh. Don't let us get you down.
 
The thing is that we are doing way less than we should be doing.

Here is a rather conservative roadmap of what we should be doing.
Note: This wouldn't avoid devastating climate change effects, but it would lessen their impact.


http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/23/15028480/roadmap-paris-climate-goals

I'm well aware of the scale of the issue and the fact that we're not on the path to solving it. That wasn't really my point, and I've always argued that the solution is going to take ramping up as time goes on, which obviously includes ramping up Paris goals and targets, as well as action.
 

Big Nikus

Member
At this point I'm just waiting for the technological singularity and hoping that our machines overlords will help us save ourselves and the planet. And bring us Half-Life 3.
 

Aikidoka

Member
So it's wrong with me trying to tell people to believe in hope that a solution to this can still be found?

I'm trying to lift people's spirits and posters like you seem to trying to purposely bring others down like that's the right thing to do.

It'd be fine if you actually made an argument and cited research instead of just being aggressive.
 
... Just as scientists predicted it would this year, just 3 years after the CO2 levels reached 400 PPM. See the full article below:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-just-breached-the-410-ppm-threshold-for-co2/

Why is this important? Let Toby from The Office explain it for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc1vrO6iL0U
Yuck...that clip from the Newsroom. How did this show get put on the air? What Toby is saying, by itself, is great. All the reaction shots are straight out of an episode of Naruto.
 
I'm well aware of the scale of the issue and the fact that we're not on the path to solving it. That wasn't really my point, and I've always argued that the solution is going to take ramping up as time goes on, which obviously includes ramping up Paris goals and targets, as well as action.

I think a common misconception is that this an issue we can solve. Thats not the case. Its to late for a solution.
This is literally just about damage control now.
Every day we wait, every excuse we make, will cost lives down the line.
 
Okay and? I get what the current status is.

That doesn't set anything in stone. We're all still alive and change can still come!



So it's wrong with me trying to tell people to believe in hope that a solution to this can still be found?

I'm trying to lift people's spirits and posters like you seem to trying to purposely bring others down like that's the right thing to do.


We're already in a mass extinction event. It just hasn't hit humans. Yet. The right thing to do is accept what the reality of the situation is and not pretend otherwise.

Want to do the right thing for your kids? Think about not having any.

Reality isn't giving up, either. It's understanding the likelihood of the potential outcomes. The world is going to be worse for my kids than it will be for mine, and that's fucking shitty to think about.
 

bobbytkc

ADD New Gen Gamer
lol at the world is dying comment. the earth once had 5 time more co2 than it does now. earth is going to be fine.

its the effects on human settlements we need to worry about.
 
I think a common misconception is that this an issue we can solve. Thats not the case. Its to late for a solution.
This is literally just about damage control now.
Every day we wait, every excuse we make, will cost lives down the line.

Well yea, it's been to late to "solve" for like 50 years.

If people think we can fix this, then they've been listening to the wrong people, and I don't blame them for that because scientists and politicians have been really bad at marketing this issue. We've been living with the consequences of climate change for 30+ years now.

However, what we do now and our roadmap for the future changes an untold amount of things, so thinking that "nothing can be done" is wrong, because damage control is extremely important in this case.
 

Hackworth

Member
There are.

We don't have anything feasible on the scale required though.
Planting huge forests and burying them so they don't rot and release the CO2 again could work, but that needs lots of land, and takes space from other land usages.

Also:
Stopping hydrocarbon use will dramatically drop emissions.
Shifting to a more vegan diet increases the efficiency of land use.
Minimizing production and usage of tech cuts emissions from energy and production.
 

FUME5

Member
Oh we should definitely be lowering our emissions as well, but I was just reading this:

BECCS - Wiki

And it estimates that it'll only cost $6 trillion to reach below 350ppm by 2100, Why aren't we already doing this?

Vested interests, lack of political will, a global population who for some reason refuse to accept the scientific evidence.

Planting huge forests and burying them so they don't rot and release the CO2 again could work, but that needs lots of land, and takes space from other land usages.

Also:
Stopping hydrocarbon use will dramatically drop emissions.
Shifting to a more vegan diet increases the efficiency of land use.
Minimizing production and usage of tech cuts emissions from energy and production.

I assumed he was asking for strictly technological methods.
 

UFO

Banned
it will literally take miracles, so that's where the defeatism is coming from

No, it will literally take the collective cooperation of the world government to seed the earth with more CO2 reducing plants, and the eventual overtake of coal/ fuel to electric power. That's it. Thats not a miracle.
 
Vested interests, lack of political will, a global population who for some reason refuse to accept the scientific evidence.

The global population accepts climate change, there are only pockets of populations that refuse it's legitimacy (which unfortunately happens to be in one of the worlds super powers and major contributor of emissions)
 

Steejee

Member
At this point I'm just waiting for the technological singularity and hoping that our machines overlords will help us save ourselves and the planet. And bring us Half-Life 3.

Now you're just dreaming.

As for story - it's awful, and we'll be setting a few more records, but there's still hope for reversing the trend. Even if Trump is a giant POS and tries to gut the EPA, a lot of market forces are pushing for renewables, states can still dictate their energy sources, and China and other industrialized/post-industrial nations are making their own renewable pushes.

I'm not going to sugar coat it and say everything will be peachy - next 100 years are going to suck in a lot of ways - but we should persevere.
 

smurfx

get some go again
you really do have to wonder if nuclear war is inevitable in a future with dwindling resources. why wouldn't a country not nuke another if there really isn't much to lose in the end?
 

RobotHaus

Unconfirmed Member
No, it will literally take the collective cooperation of the world government to seed the earth with more CO2 reducing plants, and the eventual overtake of coal/ fuel to electric power. That's it. Thats not a miracle.

While true, I ask you to try to see if that's possible with our current governments. We have people believing that we've done no damage to the Earth and this is just a little heat wave.

We need the educated to take action. We need to teach others about this danger. This is now the time to take action.
 

Dice//

Banned
you really do have to wonder if nuclear war is inevitable in a future with dwindling resources. why wouldn't a country not nuke another if there really isn't much to lose in the end?

on the other hand why bother if there's nothing much left to save.
 
You're a good dude (I mean this sincerely).

We're just being dicks for a laugh. Don't let us get you down.

Thank you. Honestly.

It'd be fine if you actually made an argument and cited research instead of just being aggressive.

My argument is the hundreds of examples of growth in renewables economically. Is that not enough on its own? Maybe. But I believe that progress like that will only lead to more progress.

We're already in a mass extinction event. It just hasn't hit humans. Yet. The right thing to do is accept what the reality of the situation is and not pretend otherwise.

Want to do the right thing for your kids? Think about not having any.

Reality isn't giving up, either. It's understanding the likelihood of the potential outcomes. The world is going to be worse for my kids than it will be for mine, and that's fucking shitty to think about.

Wrong. The likelihood of the potential outcomes does not mean a guarantee. Stop spouting that crap.

I HATE posters like you. The people who think everything is 100% destined to turn out for the worst and think they sound smarter telling everybody to act that way.

I KNOW what the reality of the situation is. I'm just going to believe that can change and that a better future is still possible.

So I WILL have children because I'm choosing to believe a better future is still in the cards.
 

erragal

Member
Okay and? I get what the current status is.

That doesn't set anything in stone. We're all still alive and change can still come!



So it's wrong with me trying to tell people to believe in hope that a solution to this can still be found?

I'm trying to lift people's spirits and posters like you seem to trying to purposely bring others down like that's the right thing to do.

Most humans are motivated more by fear than by intangible hope. By attempting to counteract the 'fear' you in a way are preventing those motivated by fear from properly reacting to the seriousness of the problem.

Hope allows people to continue pushing the problem on to someone else and pretend it doesn't affect them. Your argument comes off as attempting to mitigate the seriousness of the problem based on some irrational inherent belief in ' human ingenuity'. It might as well be like someone praying for their cancer kid to get better rather than trying out the treatments because they require a huge change in their current quality of life. It also goes back to a fundamental problem with human behavior: we will fight aggressively to avoid any step backwards in our lifestyle. You can teach people to stop wanting more but it's terribly difficult to convince a human to give something up they already have.

Just the concept of getting rid of combustion engines in the United states is going to be aggressively fought against. You have massive numbers of people who's identities, family history, lifestyle is built around that technology. It's effectively seen by them as a form of cultural warfare, they don't believe there's even a genuine motive on the part of those filthy ' environmentalists'. Particularly when you are trained to always seek personal/family advancement and that's how your brain is patterned you will find it impossible to trust there isn't some personal profit motive behind climate science. Combine that with those who do know the reality but have spent decades and billions on propaganda/intertwining fossil fuels into both the culture, geopolitics, and economic basis of the world...your individual hooray go human cheerleading rings of youthful naivete, not any real rational consideration of the observable reality we find ourselves placed within.
 
Thank you. Honestly.



My argument is the hundreds of examples of growth in renewables economically. Is that not enough on its own? Maybe. But I believe that progress like that will only lead to more progress.



Wrong. The likelihood of the potential outcomes does not mean a guarantee. Stop spouting that crap.

I HATE posters like you. The people who think everything is 100% destined to turn out for the worst and think they sound smarter telling everybody to act that way.

I KNOW what the reality of the situation is. I'm just going to believe that can change and that a better future is still possible.

So I WILL have children because I'm choosing to believe a better future is still in the cards.

You're so naive. I don't even mean that in a mean way. You've created an alternate reality for yourself, and one day it's all going to come crashing down.

Most humans are motivated more by fear than by intangible hope. By attempting to counteract the 'fear' you in a way are preventing those motivated by fear from properly reacting to the seriousness of the problem.

Hope allows people to continue pushing the problem on to someone else and pretend it doesn't affect them. Your argument comes off as attempting to mitigate the seriousness of the problem based on some irrational inherent belief in ' human ingenuity'. It might as well be like someone praying for their cancer kid to get better rather than trying out the treatments because they require a huge change in their current quality of life. It also goes back to a fundamental problem with human behavior: we will fight aggressively to avoid any step backwards in our lifestyle. You can teach people to stop wanting more but it's terribly difficult to convince a human to give something up they already have.

Just the concept of getting rid of combustion engines in the United states is going to be aggressively fought against. You have massive numbers of people who's identities, family history, lifestyle is built around that technology. It's effectively seen by them as a form of cultural warfare, they don't believe there's even a genuine motive on the part of those filthy ' environmentalists'. Particularly when you are trained to always seek personal/family advancement and that's how your brain is patterned you will find it impossible to trust there isn't some personal profit motive behind climate science. Combine that with those who do know the reality but have spent decades and billions on propaganda/intertwining fossil fuels into both the culture, geopolitics, and economic basis of the world...your individual hooray go human cheerleading rings of youthful naivete, not any real rational consideration of the observable reality we find ourselves placed within.

He's just going to get mad at you. It's the truth though.
 

Nepenthe

Member
I honestly can't tell what the situation is like from GAF's reporting back or even these kinds of reports because of lack of context. I honestly would like to know what the most accurate predictions are for the future. Like, are we all going to seriously fucking die from heat and increased ultraviolet radiation in fifty years and we might as well not even bother, or are we going to be faced with survivable albeit terrible economical and sociological disasters in areas and countries ill-equipped to handle the droughts and rising sea levels? And what can I as an individual do about it in the meantime, if anything? Having those basic questions answered would be nice, even if the answer is "Yes, you're going to die from global warming."
 

diaspora

Member
It's like if someone closed their garage and turned the car on. The CO levels are now fatal. Then someone thinks that punching holes in the door with a pencil will at this point be sufficient to save them.
 

erragal

Member
I HATE posters like you. The people who think everything is 100% destined to turn out for the worst and think they sound smarter telling everybody to act that way.

The is personal projection and an assumption of intent that can't be proven based on the statements you're responding to. People aren't concerned for the future in some weird anonymous Internet ego forum contest of smartness my friend....if you feel that they are smarter it's more likely because you can't adequately argue the logical statements they're making which show evidence of the dire consequences facing humanity.

Also, telling people you vehemently hate them multiple times doesn't give you a particularly defensible position. Despising individual humans because they don't want widespread ecological disaster and instability of human society? Even if you believe they may be exaggerating, consider their intent. Their intent is for things to be better...how in the world is that a moral justification for hatred?

Your statements are poorly reasoned, irrational, and lacking empathy for others. Considering your stated goal of being hopeful for humanity it's a touch ironic just how many of the troubling, selfish aspects of human nature you display in your cries for mindless hope.
 
Yuck...that clip from the Newsroom. How did this show get put on the air? What Toby is saying, by itself, is great. All the reaction shots are straight out of an episode of Naruto.

People get so salty over the way Sorkin delivers the messages behind this show, they lose sight of the fact he was absolutely right about our political climate and the state of journalism going into the last election.
 

smurfx

get some go again
on the other hand why bother if there's nothing much left to save.
if a country is hoarding all the resources thanks to military might then why not nuke them to take them down with you? especially if they took some resources from you.
 

pestul

Member
We really need to stop the destruction of the rainforests. That's another geopolitical pickle unfortunately.
 

Aikidoka

Member
Thank you. Honestly.



My argument is the hundreds of examples of growth in renewables economically. Is that not enough on its own? Maybe. But I believe that progress like that will only lead to more progress.
.

Other people have been citing research and potential ways to combat climate change. You haven't, and instead have just been saying stuff like this:

I HATE posters like you.

Like if you going to be a "ray of hope" for people then I'd suggest taking the complete opposite approach that you have currently been doing....
 

WedgeX

Banned
I honestly can't tell what the situation is like from GAF's reporting back or even these kinds of reports because of lack of context. I honestly would like to know what the most accurate predictions are for the future. Like, are we all going to seriously fucking die from heat and increased ultraviolet radiation in fifty years and we might as well not even bother, or are we going to be faced with survivable albeit terrible economical and sociological disasters in areas and countries ill-equipped to handle the droughts and rising sea levels? And what can I as an individual do about it in the meantime, if anything? Having those basic questions answered would be nice, even if the answer is "Yes, you're going to die from global warming."

Take advantage of these while they still exist:

US Geological Survey FAQs on Climate Change: https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9772/5641
NASA The consequences of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Globalchange.gov National Climate Assessment:http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
 

WaterAstro

Member
COP 21?

Three years of flat emissions growth?

China's emissions stalling out and falling, falling well below previous estimates?

I don't know, actual data and stuff that show improvement in terms of world wide install rate of renewables and how fast it's displacing conventional fuel.

But as long as the issue isn't completely solved, it's just easy to say nothing has been done, because you don't actually see results until we're far along in the process.

Not gonna help when we destroy all of the carbon scrubbers, the coral reefs, the tropical rainforests.

When coastal cities in the world become uninhabitable, we're all going to war over what's left, and what resources are left.
 

MattKeil

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
Nah, we'll endure as a species. The question is how many - or little - of us there will be left when the massive shit hits the fan.

Yup. Humans are too adaptable and too numerous to go extinct that fast and for that reason. Even a full scale nuclear war would be unlikely to wipe us out entirely. At one point the entire species was down to around 1000 breeding pairs and there are 7 billion of us now. The survivors might wish they'd gone extinct but actual extinction of the human race is extremely unlikely.

Put it this way, I'd hate to be the alien overseer in charge of exterminating every last human being on the planet. Taken as a group we are extraordinarily hard to kill.
 

Famassu

Member
I honestly can't tell what the situation is like from GAF's reporting back or even these kinds of reports because of lack of context. I honestly would like to know what the most accurate predictions are for the future. Like, are we all going to seriously fucking die from heat and increased ultraviolet radiation in fifty years and we might as well not even bother, or are we going to be faced with survivable albeit terrible economical and sociological disasters in areas and countries ill-equipped to handle the droughts and rising sea levels? And what can I as an individual do about it in the meantime, if anything? Having those basic questions answered would be nice, even if the answer is "Yes, you're going to die from global warming."
Catastrophes of different kind all around but it's not gonna be some instantaneous destruction or anything. A lot of coastal regions & islands are fucked with the rising sea levels but it won't happen overnight, worsened & lengthened droughts & desertification will dry up others, increased amount flooding in some regions, sea's productivity will drop drastically etc. With technology & new inventions we can probably get by some problems at least for a little while but we will have increased danger of international conflicts as tensions rise in some regions when some countries will inevidably suffer from it worse than others and some might start arguing about basic human needs like water & arable land.
 

ohlawd

Member
holy shit erragal. yoooo


well anyway, as always with these threads. there's a lot of people on the planet. when the inevitable comes and the species is culled cuz of fighting over land, or food, water, nukes, unlivable conditions, whatever, I hope the remaining people don't fuck up the next go round
 

Chichikov

Member
I honestly can't tell what the situation is like from GAF's reporting back or even these kinds of reports because of lack of context. I honestly would like to know what the most accurate predictions are for the future. Like, are we all going to seriously fucking die from heat and increased ultraviolet radiation in fifty years and we might as well not even bother, or are we going to be faced with survivable albeit terrible economical and sociological disasters in areas and countries ill-equipped to handle the droughts and rising sea levels? And what can I as an individual do about it in the meantime, if anything? Having those basic questions answered would be nice, even if the answer is "Yes, you're going to die from global warming."
The world is not going to become uninhabitable for humans, let alone all life, but many heavily populated regions are going to either become uninhabitable or unable to support the people currently living there. Which will leads to many deaths and a migration/refugee crisis that will make the Syrian one looks like a joke.
 

JordanN

Banned
Nah, we'll endure as a species. The question is how many - or little - of us there will be left when the massive shit hits the fan.

If there's less than a 100 of us, why bother?
All our children will be reproducing with brothers and sisters.
aZrFjsb.png
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Thank you. Honestly.



My argument is the hundreds of examples of growth in renewables economically. Is that not enough on its own? Maybe. But I believe that progress like that will only lead to more progress.



Wrong. The likelihood of the potential outcomes does not mean a guarantee. Stop spouting that crap.

I HATE posters like you. The people who think everything is 100% destined to turn out for the worst and think they sound smarter telling everybody to act that way.

I KNOW what the reality of the situation is. I'm just going to believe that can change and that a better future is still possible.

So I WILL have children because I'm choosing to believe a better future is still in the cards.
Please dial it back a bit.
 
I honestly can't tell what the situation is like from GAF's reporting back or even these kinds of reports because of lack of context. I honestly would like to know what the most accurate predictions are for the future. Like, are we all going to seriously fucking die from heat and increased ultraviolet radiation in fifty years and we might as well not even bother, or are we going to be faced with survivable albeit terrible economical and sociological disasters in areas and countries ill-equipped to handle the droughts and rising sea levels? And what can I as an individual do about it in the meantime, if anything? Having those basic questions answered would be nice, even if the answer is "Yes, you're going to die from global warming."

Are we going to die from heat and increased UV radiation in 50 years? No.

Are parts of, oh let's take Florida for example, going to be underwater (and thus uninhabitable for humans) in 50 years? It is extremely likely yes.

Can we prevent this? If we had been doing better work over the previous decade or so, yes.

Despite what the optimists say, we had to do work wayyyyyyy fucking earlier than now to have a real shot at preventing this completely. Now we have to do work within 3-5 years to have any real shot at slowing down or mitigating the damage. If we are unable to do that, it's factually over and Miami is going to sink (I might be wrong on the location and it might be Orlando). If the doubters are currently young/millenials they will almost certainly be alive to see it happen.

I'm not having kids either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom