• 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

Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
So it's so complex that we need to trust the people who have made countless inaccurate predictions because now they predict we are on the verge of becoming Venus? That does not compute for me.

All that said, I don't deny the devastation that humans are causing. But we should stick to the facts without the doom and gloom predictions. People listen (some anyway) when their doctor says you're obesity and diet has you on the verge of diabetes. No one listens when the doctor says your obesity and diet is going to make you explode from the inside out.
Unless you got a better explanation for the Ice melting, africa turning to a desert and the water ph levels rising.
I suggest you to trust in our fellow scientists.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,533
3,229
625
Unless you got a better explanation for the Ice melting, africa turning to a desert and the water ph levels rising.
I suggest you to trust in our fellow scientists.
Had an ice age before. Not a single plant in production that year.

Africa looking like a desert sounds like an old story too.

Water ph, most certainly a side effect of over fertilization and release of noxious chemicals into the environment. I share your concern on that one. I'm more concerned with over fishing depleting fish stocks though, as well as dirty needles sticking out of the sand at the beach.
 
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
Had an ice age before. Not a single plant in production that year.

Africa looking like a desert sounds like an old story too.

Water ph, most certainly a side effect of over fertilization and release of noxious chemicals into the environment. I share your concern on that one. I'm more concerned with over fishing depleting fish stocks though, as well as dirty needles sticking out of the sand at the beach.
During ice age there where still life.. Mosses and algea where still around on the ocean. its not like all life were depleted doing the last ice age we had.

Africa hadn't always been a desert though not like it is today in any case.

Water PH, is as much a global warming problem as it is caused by dangerous chemicals. the Pollution the Co2 concentration has increased. meaning our oceans Acid level changes. everything is connected. the Water is essential part of the photosynthesis. so if you worry about Water PH . you should also worry about Global warming because its the same thing. or at least its the same solution that is needed.

 
Last edited:

HenkDV

Member
Aug 11, 2018
709
559
315
Co2 is not the cause of climate change. Co2 is essential to life on this planet.
Millions of years ago co2 levels were orders of magnitudes higher than current levels! O2 levels were also way higher! Guess what? Trees were twice as big and animals were fucking monsterous beasts many times larger than today...
Climate change is all down to our sun! Our planet is also off axis by around 10 degrees but you leftists ignore the facts.
I drink water to survive, but I'd still drown if my room was filled with it.
A warmer climate isn't inherently bad for the planet as a whole. It simply will have catastrophic consequences for humanity.
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
4,713
5,658
570
I drink water to survive, but I'd still drown if my room was filled with it.
A warmer climate isn't inherently bad for the planet as a whole. It simply will have catastrophic consequences for humanity.
if humankind finds peace and oneness and racism and sexism and genderism are forever eliminated and we all transcend to a higher sphere of consciousness and procreate with dolphins creating a new race of amphibious telepathic beings that live to be 5,000 years old...

...we will still get hit by an asteroid. or the sun will expand and swallow the Earth. or it will die out and become a brown dwarf, leaving the planet cold and lifeless. heck, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

face it, the future of all life if catastrophic. death is part of life. furthermore it is a near certainty, given the timespan of the universe, and the life and death cycles of even the heavenly bodies.

it is the height of ego for us to pretend we can engineer our way out of this. everyone thinks they are Elon Musk here.

we are going to empty our pockets for these people and thank them for taking our money for solving all the unsolvable problems? meanwhile they cannot stop us from dying. they cannot stop starvation. they cannot stop disease. they cannot stop poverty. they cannot stop greed. or war. these things have been with us for eons. we are no longer going to have floods? scientists are going to stop droughts from happening? are you serious? lol
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: lock2k

HenkDV

Member
Aug 11, 2018
709
559
315
if humankind finds peace and oneness and racism and sexism and genderism are forever eliminated and we all transcend to a higher sphere of consciousness and procreate with dolphins creating a new race of amphibious telepathic beings that live to be 5,000 years old...

...we will still get hit by an asteroid. or the sun will expand and swallow the Earth. or it will die out and become a brown dwarf, leaving the planet cold and lifeless. heck, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

face it, the future of all life if catastrophic. death is part of life. furthermore it is a near certainty, given the timespan of the universe, and the life and death cycles of even the heavenly bodies.

it is the height of ego for us to pretend we can engineer our way out of this. everyone thinks they are Elon Musk here.

we are going to empty our pockets for these people and thank them for taking our money for solving all the unsolvable problems? meanwhile they cannot stop us from dying. they cannot stop starvation. they cannot stop disease. they cannot stop poverty. they cannot stop greed. or war. these things have been with us for eons. we are no longer going to have floods? scientists are going to stop droughts from happening? are you serious? lol
Christ, this forum is a lost cause sometimes.

Climate change is already having, and will have more extreme, negative effects on our world. I'm not saying the world will end in X amount of years because things aren't that simple, but your children and their children will suffer because of climate change. This isn't some random event such as an asteroid that may hit earth at some point that we can't (currently!) do much about. This is a human caused crisis that we have the resources and technology for to solve or at least mitigate at this point. It's a matter of whether we want to or not.

Your entire post just shows your ignorance on the subject and is pretty retarded. Honestly, I don't even know what on earth that last paragraph is.
 

manner

Neo Member
Jan 24, 2019
15
8
80
Global warming may spell the end of human civilization, but it won't be the end of all life on the planet. The planet has endured much worse than human-driven climate change and global warming. If we are to alleviate the damage we've done, the only way to begin doing so is by thinking conscientiously about how much we consume and produce. The success of late capitalism has been attributed to its capacity to conquer by an excess of supply (Source: Brief Principles of Macroeconomics). That is, so many goods are produced and advertised that people eventually buy them. In fact, buying is almost patriotic now; we are told we have to compete with emerging economies in Europe, North Africa, and South Asia, and one way to do so is by keeping demand alive at all times. May be it's not a bad thing that the human specie might be wiped away. The planet won't have to deal with our avarice.
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
Dude, not sure if anyone has said it but we cannot even reliably predict weather here in the now, we cannot even predict weather accurately 3 days in advance. Why would you willingly believe some alarmist hippies about an apocalypse that is supposedly 30 years in to the future when we cannot even forecast accurately 3 days out let alone 30 years out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lock2k
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
Dude, not sure if anyone has said it but we cannot even reliably predict weather here in the now, we cannot even predict weather accurately 3 days in advance. Why would you willingly believe some alarmist hippies about an apocalypse that is supposedly 30 years in to the future when we cannot even forecast accurately 3 days out let alone 30 years out.
Look its not about when exactly the event occur, its just we are 97% sure it happens. In what world do you do exactly the upperside if what 97 % tells you is the facts and that is how it works. Beside even if you can drive a car fast like 200 miles/per hour. Most people would disagree on doing it, due to its severe consequences if something goes wrong.
 
Last edited:

HenkDV

Member
Aug 11, 2018
709
559
315
Dude, not sure if anyone has said it but we cannot even reliably predict weather here in the now, we cannot even predict weather accurately 3 days in advance. Why would you willingly believe some alarmist hippies about an apocalypse that is supposedly 30 years in to the future when we cannot even forecast accurately 3 days out let alone 30 years out.
Weather and climate aren't the same thing and predicting either isn't remotely the same. If you don't even understand insanely basic shit like this why do you even have a strong opinion about this subject?
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
Weather and climate aren't the same thing and predicting either isn't remotely the same. If you don't even understand insanely basic shit like this why do you even have a strong opinion about this subject?
That's the point, despite the fact that weather and climate are not the same if you can't predict the weather you cannot predict the climate, not hard to understand.
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
Look its not about when exactly the event occur, its just we are 97% sure it happens. In what world do you do exactly the upperside if what 97 % tells you is the facts and that is how it works. Beside even if you can drive a car fast like 200 miles/per hour. Most people would disagree on doing it, due to its severe consequences if something goes wrong.
97% sure huh? I believe you......not.
 
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
97% sure huh? I believe you......not.
This is a incredible weak respons.
You know what forget the % and just listen to scientists in climate. All of the scientists share the same Consensus.

The sceptisisme spread from other scientists are due to those being in other fields. They dont research the climate but they research the sun or they research the ocean. But climate scientists share the same Consensus that humans has caused dangerous level of increasing global warming. It is indissputable and I Refuse to argue about it. Get over it and otherwise i can only conclude that you do not care about science and you do not care about This topic at All but are just hear to troll around the subject.

And btw i know freedom of speech and everyone needs to be heard. I agree that people are welcome to Refuse the science. But if you do, then just live With the knowledge that you caused our mass extinction. By being irresponsible and joking around a serious subject. And causing seeds of doubt in innocent people.

Lastly i am not going into a discussion about when it happens because the variables are complicated seriously check All the work they do on This site

It has no agenda its just describing operations and observations done by talented. People that understand their work. We also know that climate scientist are incredible poor paid compared to space scientists or physics because, our economy doesnt give our climate any value.

I apologize if my language is a bit harsh, but I am furious that people doesnt agree on the science.
I really dont care what you do afterwards but we cant discuss anything as long as facts are still doubted. And so i question why they are Even in this thread.
 

Winter John

Gold Member
Mar 9, 2014
1,633
752
610
I ain't smart enough to know whether it's true or not but I hope I'm long gone before it happens. I had one of the local preppers show me the bunker he'd built a while back. It was cool as fuck but I don't know why anyone would want to survive a nuclear war.
 

Solomeena

Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,028
1,274
395
This is a incredible weak respons.
You know what forget the % and just listen to scientists in climate. All of the scientists share the same Consensus.

The sceptisisme spread from other scientists are due to those being in other fields. They dont research the climate but they research the sun or they research the ocean. But climate scientists share the same Consensus that humans has caused dangerous level of increasing global warming. It is indissputable and I Refuse to argue about it. Get over it and otherwise i can only conclude that you do not care about science and you do not care about This topic at All but are just hear to troll around the subject.

And btw i know freedom of speech and everyone needs to be heard. I agree that people are welcome to Refuse the science. But if you do, then just live With the knowledge that you caused our mass extinction. By being irresponsible and joking around a serious subject. And causing seeds of doubt in innocent people.

Lastly i am not going into a discussion about when it happens because the variables are complicated seriously check All the work they do on This site

It has no agenda its just describing operations and observations done by talented. People that understand their work. We also know that climate scientist are incredible poor paid compared to space scientists or physics because, our economy doesnt give our climate any value.

I apologize if my language is a bit harsh, but I am furious that people doesnt agree on the science.
I really dont care what you do afterwards but we cant discuss anything as long as facts are still doubted. And so i question why they are Even in this thread.
Because scientists at best are guessing, simple. And i can post in this thread because anyone can, don't backseat mod man, not cool.
 
Aug 29, 2018
1,180
1,527
390
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
Do you have a article about this or some type of video that explains the method more detailed?

This is one of many sites detailing the idea, and arguing against it because of the time required to make the waste impossible to dig back up. Well no shit, the whole point is to give it time to become inert before it's melted into the mantle, and it's a hell of a lot harder to access a few miles underwater than it is in a terrestrial storage facility.

I'm also not talking about dumping 55 gallon steel drums of the stuff directly onto the ocean bed. Make a 3 layer vessel of concrete, aluminium, and lead to store the waste in. Drill a bore hole a hundred meters into the sea floor near the subduction zone, and encase the vessel. Keep boring holes where needed until we figure out fusion. If anybody is worried about the material falling into the wrong hands, then arm the drilling platform and make the whole thing a Navy operation.

Of course Yucca Mountain will serve the same purpose, and from what I understand the only thing holding that project back are the environmentalists. We could run our entire nation on nuclear base load with renewables and natural gas where appropriate, and actually cut our emmissions. Insisting on 100% solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal is just effectively supporting our continued heavy use of hydrocarbons.

Anybody opposing nuclear power is supporting our continued use of fossil fuels, period.
 

Sakura

Member
Feb 13, 2012
8,406
280
600
Canada
I guess we are all boned then, because even if every country meets their Paris targets we are still heading for 3° C warming, and we all know that every country ain't gonna meet their targets.
Oh well.
 

MetalAlien

Member
Mar 6, 2005
9,236
1,269
1,465
To really reverse what has been done would take a total dismantling of society as we know it. Everything would have to go. Cars, Air conditioning, meat, and most importantly freedom of reproduction.

I can tell you now in 2050, all of that will still be here in nearly the same form it is now.
 
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
To really reverse what has been done would take a total dismantling of society as we know it. Everything would have to go. Cars, Air conditioning, meat, and most importantly freedom of reproduction.

I can tell you now in 2050, all of that will still be here in nearly the same form it is now.
I agree, even if nuclear power saves the global warming, we still have the challenge of our ocean being acidic for many years, and biodiversity disrupting the food chain wont stop, climate will be unstable for many years. Heck why even argue i get the feeling the deniers here will just shoot the immegrants, which are forced to flee due to their country being uninhabiteble. This reminds me of game of thrones and how no one in the south believes the whitr walkers exist. Well the good Thing about science is that it doesnt care Who is right and wrong exist it just is and so are we.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,590
1,385
455
Here is easy method to store spend nuclear fuel:
Take one medium sized coal mine. Dump those drums into lowest level. Cement one mine shaft.
Congratz you just took away all nuclear waste on planet into that one shaft and with 3km deep you ensure that it will never poison ground water.
Now with 90 other mine shafts at 3km deep level and 100s of other coal mines you can safely store enough spend nuclear fuel for about 100k years. It should be enough to get from fission to fussion.
 

Kagey K

Gold Member
Dec 18, 2013
3,018
2,820
720
Here is easy method to store spend nuclear fuel:
Take one medium sized coal mine. Dump those drums into lowest level. Cement one mine shaft.
Congratz you just took away all nuclear waste on planet into that one shaft and with 3km deep you ensure that it will never poison ground water.
Now with 90 other mine shafts at 3km deep level and 100s of other coal mines you can safely store enough spend nuclear fuel for about 100k years. It should be enough to get from fission to fussion.
Canada is actually doing something similar to that now, but having a hard time finding a town willing to store it.

 
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480

This is one of many sites detailing the idea, and arguing against it because of the time required to make the waste impossible to dig back up. Well no shit, the whole point is to give it time to become inert before it's melted into the mantle, and it's a hell of a lot harder to access a few miles underwater than it is in a terrestrial storage facility.

I'm also not talking about dumping 55 gallon steel drums of the stuff directly onto the ocean bed. Make a 3 layer vessel of concrete, aluminium, and lead to store the waste in. Drill a bore hole a hundred meters into the sea floor near the subduction zone, and encase the vessel. Keep boring holes where needed until we figure out fusion. If anybody is worried about the material falling into the wrong hands, then arm the drilling platform and make the whole thing a Navy operation.

Of course Yucca Mountain will serve the same purpose, and from what I understand the only thing holding that project back are the environmentalists. We could run our entire nation on nuclear base load with renewables and natural gas where appropriate, and actually cut our emmissions. Insisting on 100% solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal is just effectively supporting our continued heavy use of hydrocarbons.

Anybody opposing nuclear power is supporting our continued use of fossil fuels, period.
Nuclear power wont save animals or climate, it is not a solution it is killing our planet for certainly and gambling With potential instantly disaster. A yes to more nuclear power is a clear pervert lust for power instead of taking All considerations we know about our situation seriously, in short it is irresponsible and foolish attempt.
To a issue that is about a corrupt system and its about destribution of power, its about changing behavior taking care of our waste replanning our development structures. All nuclear power will do is allow us to say This is fine, while more fish and more animals gets less space due to old uncorrected system that thinks we have unlimited growth. Its a Shame that few people are able to think rationally and logical in a time of dire need. I am ashamed to be part of homo sapiens.
 
Aug 29, 2018
1,180
1,527
390
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
Nuclear power wont save animals or climate, it is not a solution it is killing our planet for certainly and gambling With potential instantly disaster. A yes to more nuclear power is a clear pervert lust for power instead of taking All considerations we know about our situation seriously, in short it is irresponsible and foolish attempt.
To a issue that is about a corrupt system and its about destribution of power, its about changing behavior taking care of our waste replanning our development structures. All nuclear power will do is allow us to say This is fine, while more fish and more animals gets less space due to old uncorrected system that thinks we have unlimited growth. Its a Shame that few people are able to think rationally and logical in a time of dire need. I am ashamed to be part of homo sapiens.
You forgot to mention anything about the Fabiens.
 
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
Pro nuclear people: we have this incredible dangerous and toxic Thing that kills people in holocaust numbers. Let's create more of it so if everything goes wrong we take everything With us. Despite science advicing to use caution due to half-life theory and more unstable environments in the future.

Nuclear power deniers: lets use caution and rectify our rectless behaviors against our only habitat instead of rushing to our death. Until we are absolute sure we dont harm life more on earth. But if nuclear power gets to point where we can guarantee those things we can start encouragement of using the technology.

Who sounds more like a psychopath/sociopath with born lack of empathy??
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,705
7,098
1,340
nuclear is already at that point, containment is pretty great these days, worst case shit just melts down and down and down and down and down and down and then it gets into your water and now you're wolverine
 
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
an ungodly amount of variables, among them carbon emissions
Even if media has changed the term to climate change,doesnt change that the discussion has always been about global trend of Warming happening and with very sudden spike like trend in less than 200 years temperature changes skyrocketed to levels that would take 100.000 years to be altered naturally.

As you say ungodly amount of variables. that we have hired, climate scientists to help us figure out.
Now that almost all of them agree on why. Beside a few moral traitors in the pocket on oil companies, and those are few, and i dare say they should be branded as traitors. The evidence gets more clear every year that we continue doing nothing. We even entered a situation where simulation says there is a 10 % chance of earth turning into Venus. Venus where the surface is hotter than on mercury. A true hell planet.
 

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,232
387
1,225
Here is easy method to store spend nuclear fuel:
Take one medium sized coal mine. Dump those drums into lowest level. Cement one mine shaft.
Congratz you just took away all nuclear waste on planet into that one shaft and with 3km deep you ensure that it will never poison ground water.
Now with 90 other mine shafts at 3km deep level and 100s of other coal mines you can safely store enough spend nuclear fuel for about 100k years. It should be enough to get from fission to fussion.
Nuclear fission is not least-cost in most of the globe. It is not about the method of storing spent fuel.

In the face of declining renewable technologies costs and natural gas prices, nuclear is broadly never competitive, unless the whole world imposes stringent carbon prices for natural gas use. Furthermore, with intermittent renewables, like PV and wind turbines, nuclear plants fail to reliably ramp up and down throughout the day. Plus, nuclear plants take at least 10 years to build... likely a bit more, as 90% of all existing projects have overrun their costs and construction times.

The nuclear plant that was being built in SC, USA, is now canceled after 9 billion dollars were spent. (https://www.postandcourier.com/news/v-c-summer-nuclear-cancellation-costs-sc-residents-billions/article_5e47be44-f711-11e8-b849-7fd4061473e5.html)

The next decade will see historically low LNG prices due to large quantities of US exports. Natural gas is now 2.50-4.00 $/MMBTU, depending on season, in the US, and for domestic supplies in other countries.

Credentials: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9w86KaQAAAAJ&hl=en
 
Last edited:

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
686
654
295
Whether you believe climate change is natural or caused by humans, it is happening and people are already feeling it. The problem is most people aren't worried until their little bubble is affected. But that bubble is growing rapidly.

I know where I live the insects are just gone. I dont know of any other way of explaining it. 15 years ago this area was teeming with insects and birds and they've vanished. Sad thing is, my first home which is 19 hours away is in a similar situation. Something like that seems insignificant to most I'm sure.
 
Oct 26, 2018
3,573
2,765
440
So no climate apocalypse lately, so let's drag out global meltdown predictions another few decades.

And then when 2050 comes and nothing special has happened, drag it out to 2100.

Gotcha.
 

Loc J Leno

Neo Member
Jun 14, 2019
16
17
105
I don't disbelieve in global warming, but a lot of these predictions turn out to be wrong and there have been MANY of them over the past few decades. So many false predictions that it just gives more ammo to climate deniers.
 
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
I don't disbelieve in global warming, but a lot of these predictions turn out to be wrong and there have been MANY of them over the past few decades. So many false predictions that it just gives more ammo to climate deniers.
The good thing about science is that it doesnt care if you believe it or not
 
  • Like
Reactions: womfalcs3
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
So no climate apocalypse lately, so let's drag out global meltdown predictions another few decades.

And then when 2050 comes and nothing special has happened, drag it out to 2100.

Gotcha.
What special?? Perma frost melting With methane depots thats not special?? The fact we killed 50% of all species living on earth. What special are you looking for?? I assume you are waiting for something special like, food needs to be gone so you cant be on neogaf posting because you be dead. Is that the speciel situation your waiting for??
 
Jun 25, 2018
539
288
480
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.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arkage

Elcid

Gold Member
Jul 27, 2018
906
1,021
500
That goal post just keeps moving back further and further and I'm just here waiting for some apocalypse like a girl getting stood up on prom night.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,582
1,377
815
it is the height of ego for us to pretend we can engineer our way out of this. everyone thinks they are Elon Musk here.

we are going to empty our pockets for these people and thank them for taking our money for solving all the unsolvable problems? meanwhile they cannot stop us from dying. they cannot stop starvation. they cannot stop disease. they cannot stop poverty. they cannot stop greed. or war. these things have been with us for eons. we are no longer going to have floods? scientists are going to stop droughts from happening? are you serious? lol
We've engineered our way out of childbirth deaths, out of most diseases, out of starvation and poverty to substantial extents on a global scale, and even made our way to the moon and built a space station and global networking and bombs that can destroy the world 100x over. It is the height of nihilism to suggest that climate change is an inevitable event of destruction that we should throw our hands to the air over and do nothing about to mitigate. We created the mess, we are damn well be able to fix if we invest in actual solutions and mitigations. Unlike a comet hitting earth, which we didn't create, but even then could still form plans to address.

And beyond all this, regardless if we fix the climate issue, there's still the whole "destroying millions of animals and ecosystems i.e. food"" via water and land pollution and destruction that doesn't rely on advance scientific models to figure out the truth of. It just so happens that the problem of climate and the problem of pollution are closely intertwined, so pushing for change in this direction is a net positive for both.
 
Last edited: