• 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

falcs

Member
May 5, 2011
2,800
452
725
Australia
Link: https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/climate-change-doomsday-report-predicts-end-of-human-civilisation/news-story/36765cb4eedc989f6ad860e6eee405cf

According to climate change scientists, we may only have 30 more years before complete environmental catastrophe.
....
Using climate data, Spratt and Dunlop claim the Earth can expect at least a 3C rise in temperatures, which would trigger global decay and destruction of crucial ecosystems, including the Arctic, Amazon rainforests and coral reefs.

More than a billion people may need to be relocated, and in high-end scenarios, the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end,” Spratt and Dunlop warn.

By 2050, total ecological collapse would give way to massive social consequences ranging from “increased religious fervour to outright chaos”.

The report suggests the catastrophic chain of environmental disasters will climax with widespread pandemics, forced migration from inhabitable locations and a likely nuclear war due to skirmishing for limited resources.

“Planetary and human systems (reach) a ‘point of no return’ by mid-century in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order,” the report predicts.

Spratt and Dunlop sum up our disastrous fate with a harrowing thought: “Climate change now represents a near-to-mid-term existential threat to human civilisation.”
...

By 2050, sea levels will have risen by 0.5 metres, and 55 per cent of the global population will be subjected to lethal heat conditions for more than 20 days each year. Weather extremes will amplify, including increases in wildfires, heatwaves, drought and the aridification of “more than 30 per cent of the world’s land surface”.

...
Full article at the link ^.

Well, we done fucked it up now, din' we?
 

Kagey K

Gold Member
Dec 18, 2013
3,081
2,863
720
Damn I’ll be too old to survive the apocalypse (if I’m still alive), and if it’s that close it’s way too late to do anything about it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, at this point.
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2018
4,753
6,271
640
29
Southeastern USA
Never has a species earned it so thoroughly.
If the way the Obama years played out doesn't make you lose all hope in mankind, I don't know what will.

We go from a "post-racial" America to the most hyper racialized culture in 50 years and one that is openly hateful of white people, that's the result of America finally electing it's first black President, what was supposed to be the nail in the coffin for racism in America did the polar opposite.

Mankind never met a good thing that we didn't just have to completely ruin, it's like a compulsion, like a child destroying their sandcastle.

So yeah, we're probably doomed and I'm not sure I really care much anymore, I got burned too bad by the optimism I felt during the early days of Obama and how badly that blew up in my face to get my hopes up again.
 

Kagey K

Gold Member
Dec 18, 2013
3,081
2,863
720
I see the alarlism isn't going to stop.

These guys have the same accuracy as the religious nutters who tell me I'm going to die every few years.
I watched through SNL from the beginning recently (I know I’m a masochist) and Chevy Chase was sounding the global warning bell on Weekend Update in the late 70s, we were all going to be ants under the microscope by 2000 if nothing was done.

Yet here we are, and these “woke” people are just reiterating to us the same things Saturday morning cartoons did in the 80s.

I love how they think they came up with these ideas, yet each of us grew up with them thrown in our face. We were watching a retro music video channel the other day and my son was like “Wait, that guy was flossing” like the floss is a new dance they think they invented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ownage
Jan 25, 2018
4,753
6,271
640
29
Southeastern USA
Science is wonderful and all, but it's not as flawless as we're led to believe, it's subject to human biases and confirmation bias same as anything else.

What do you think climate scientists are hoping to find? They're not hoping to find data saying everything's going to be ok, they're hoping for bad news, because this is pushed by the left because it provides the perfect excuse for governmental control of everything, there's a lot of political baggage to it, if any data was found disproving it it'd be buried pretty damn quick, they want it to be real to support their agendas.

If you think scientists aren't still human beings and perfectly impartial when doing research, well, keep dreaming.

How complicated do you think the weather and the environment is? How much loads and loads and loads of data? Oh yeah, it's subject to judgement calls alright, I can guarantee it.

There's a Religiosity surrounding science in modern culture and Climate Change really is the secular version of the apocalypse.

My gut instinct tells me it's not going to be as bad as they're saying, they've been saying we are the verge of doom for decades and yet here we still are, so clearly something's up.
 
Last edited:

highrider

Gold Member
Dec 18, 2010
8,796
1,908
900
51
washington d.c.
They’ve been bleating about this for years. Even if it’s 100% accurate which I highly doubt there’s no solution that can be globally implemented so there isn’t much point worrying about it. The issue has become a political football.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,239
21,903
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
There are roughly 915 million acres of farmland in the USA alone. Utilize just 1% of that for soil regeneration and carbon sequestration and we'd be fine.

If farms combined the practice of rapid-growth forest (which we already do for stands of timber) with carbon sequestration and biomass energy techniques (like using a retort kiln to produce biochar and flammable gas) then we could sequester about 450 million extra tons of carbon per year (using lower-end estimates of a young forest). This estimate omits any carbon saved from using the gasses for energy production.

The problem isn't carbon output versus emission reduction on a per-year basis. We need to find ways to get the carbon back into the soil on a more permanent basis. Biochar has a half-life of a few hundred years, thankfully. Over the course of a single generation, we could simultaneously bring back the rich soil fertility of the American farmlands while going carbon negative. Our topsoil has been stripped of its carbon content, which is both why it was so fertile when we arrived and why our soils are so dead now.

The pearl-clutchers will keep clutching, but I expect thrifty farmers who move away from industrial farming practices will end up quietly fixing the problem for everyone else.
 
Last edited:

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,025
1,076
415
Could you imagine if we lived during one of the many other different points in time where the climate changed naturally, like the ice age? Now we believe the climate can only change again if it is our doing.

I say civilization gets knocked out by disease.
 

Pagusas

Member
Jun 9, 2006
10,969
1,172
1,400
Prosper, Tx
There are roughly 915 million acres of farmland in the USA alone. Utilize just 1% of that for soil regeneration and carbon sequestration and we'd be fine.

If farms combined the practice of rapid-growth forest (which we already do for stands of timber) with carbon sequestration and biomass energy techniques (like using a retort kiln to produce biochar and flammable gas) then we could sequester about 450 million extra tons of carbon per year (using lower-end estimates of a young forest). This estimate omits any carbon saved from using the gasses for energy production.

The problem isn't carbon output, carbon reduction, and carbon sequestration on a per-year basis. We need to find ways to get the carbon back into the soil on a more permanent basis. Biochar has a half-life of a few hundred years, thankfully. Over the course of a single generation, we could simultaneously bring back the rich soil fertility of the American farmlands while going carbon negative.

The pearl-clutchers will keep clutching, but I expect thrifty farmers who move away from industrial farming practices will end up quietly fixing the problem for everyone else.
If it was really that simple, why would it not have been already put in place? I feel like you are greatly oversimplifying the problem.

Could you imagine if we lived during one of the many other different points in time where the climate changed naturally, like the ice age? Now we believe the climate can only change again if it is our doing.

I say civilization gets knocked out by disease.
This is a false argument and one that needs to be dropped. Climate change patterns are accounted for in all models. You are not smarter than the people dedicating their lives to observing and reporting on this problem. Yes we've had some crazy groups out their with political agendas manipulating the issue for their own gain, but regardless of them their is a real issue here that needs to be addressed, even if its not as bleak as they are suggesting, we are still doing a bang up job polluting this planet, literally the only one we have. Somehow things will have to change to keep this place habitable for future generations at a quality of life above Mad Max.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,239
21,903
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
If it was really that simple, why would it not have been already put in place? I feel like you are greatly oversimplifying the problem.
Farming in this way can be labor-intensive. It requires farmers to abandon the agri-chemical model of tillage and spraying. It's not expensive (In fact, it would save farmers money) but it requires a different production agriculture paradigm than the one we've been using for 80 years. The farmers who've been switching away from the old methods of chemicals and soil amendments are signaling a new era of food production.

The problem isn't one of effort or viability, but of corporate backing and public awareness. One can imagine why a simple solution isn't put into place on a wider scale in our modern corporate environment. It's not as easy to package and sell this "brand" of agriculture because much of it is d.i.y. and using really cheap methods to bring about the results you want. It's profitable for the farmer who uses it. It's not as profitable for the gigantic agri-chemical companies and the distributors and marketers who ship and sell produce around the country.

These methods wouldn't require us to sacrifice agricultural output, either. In fact, we would be able to get more out of each acre of farmland compared to before.

I'm not trying to simplify a complex problem, but it is the case that we do not have enough living plant matter sequestering carbon out of the atmosphere. Emission reduction is one thing. Sequestration is infinitely more important yet is strangely forgotten or ignored. Plants, fungi, and bacteria are the three organisms best suited for carbon sequestration if we're talking about land usage. Oceans are another story, and I do not have much knowledge there.
 

Pagusas

Member
Jun 9, 2006
10,969
1,172
1,400
Prosper, Tx
Who'd have thought sucking all the oil out of the earth and burning it was a bad idea? I mean there was no way to predict this! No way at all.
People tend not to think in scale, especially when industries are starting out. No one back then was thinking how their inventions or discoveries could have an effect on something as large as the whole world. Unlike what fiction would have us believe, there arent many people out their manically laughing, exciting about the prospect of destroying the world. I've never seen the point in vilifying the industries that started this, specific people who turned blind eyes sure, but not the originators.
 
Last edited:

DKehoe

Gold Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,008
705
1,235
Could you imagine if we lived during one of the many other different points in time where the climate changed naturally, like the ice age? Now we believe the climate can only change again if it is our doing.

I say civilization gets knocked out by disease.
Could you imagine if numerous studies had been done by experts showing that this change was being caused by humans rather than the climate naturally?
 

MetalAlien

Member
Mar 6, 2005
9,271
1,305
1,465
People tend not to think in scale, especially when industries are starting out. No one back then was thinking how their inventions or discoveries could have an effect on something as large as the whole world. Unlike what fiction would have us believe, there arent many people out their manically laughing, exciting about the prospect of destroying the world. I've never seen the point in vilifying the industries that started this, specific people who turned blind eyes sure, but not the originators.
i'm not hating really. I am not a fan of people. They figured out pretty quickly this was a bad idea and just said fuck it I won't be here when it all goes bad give me more money. God bless'em.
 

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
8,799
1,665
980
If anthropogenic climate change is real and the effects are as dire as the doomsayers predict, we're all fucked anyway.

As individuals we have as much ability to affect it as we do to prevent a catastrophic asteroid impact wiping out civilization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pr0cs

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,800
7,217
1,340
burning fossil fuels is changing the environment naturally

just saying

we're not that special
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HUELEN10

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,800
7,217
1,340
Chances are that I’ll be dead by then, and I had the foresight to not have kids. Given the direction humanity is going, extinction is probably for the best. All hope is gone for common sense and sanity to return.
nah you're gonna die, humanity will move on, as will the good people who choose to have kids
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
36,383
1,352
1,585
This article has been floating around for the past week. The alarmist nature of their claims are doing a disservice to the real climate change research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geki-D and RedVIper

plane.jpg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
302
271
295
This is why Trump wants secure borders. Those caravans are largely farmers who can't produce any longer due to climate change. Once it gets worse, you're going to see huge populations migrating north and clamoring to get into the US. We probably have the space, but there are huge issues at play introducing such a huge population of people into an established country in such a short period of time.
 

MC Safety

Member
Jun 9, 2004
12,654
353
1,570
This is why Trump wants secure borders. Those caravans are largely farmers who can't produce any longer due to climate change. Once it gets worse, you're going to see huge populations migrating north and clamoring to get into the US. We probably have the space, but there are huge issues at play introducing such a huge population of people into an established country in such a short period of time.
This ignores the myriad social, economic, and political problems faced by Mexico and Central America. We're talking about more than a migration of agricultural workers.

As for climate change, I think heightened awareness and technology will be more beneficial than fearmongering.
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
4,797
5,760
570
Who'd have thought sucking all the oil out of the earth and burning it was a bad idea? I mean there was no way to predict this! No way at all.
apparently the answer is to give those same people billions of dollars and hope they do the opposite this time! makes sense
 
  • Like
Reactions: MetalAlien