• 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

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,215
380
1,225
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.

I think all these model projections are underestimating global warming. There is a vicious cycle thats about to be unleashed. We need to use ACs even more to cope with GW. We Will need more electricity. We Will pollute more in the short to medium term. GW is exacerbated.
 
Last edited:
Jun 25, 2018
507
284
480
I think all these model projections are underestimating global warming. There is a vicious cycle thats about to be unleashed. We need to use ACs even more to cope with GW. We Will need more electricity. We Will pollute more in the short to medium term. GW is exacerbated.
Exactly which is why we are in a climate crisis. And people refusing This are climate science deniers.

And the global is heating, not warming we are already in heat.
 
Last edited:

sevoro

Neo Member
Jun 15, 2019
113
125
215
Australia
As someone who's spent most of their life observing people, here are some things I noticed

So many people are just too preoccupied with their own lives that something that isn't harming them immediately won't matter at all. Simple human nature. The guy who has to work his ass off to provide for his family won't be thinking about the effects of climate change, because he cant "see" or "feel" it. Only when it's too late will those type of people care.

Then ofc you have the doomsayers, who are smart and educated, but have just lost all hope for any future.

We need a lot of campaigning to get people to realise climate change is a problem, or a group of scientists, professors and engineers designing a solution to our problem.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
193
157
230
The part of the climate change argument I take most issue with isn't regarding measurement; the argument of "More carbon in air = we getting hotter" is a fine one.

I do, however find it very dishonest when the alarmism focuses on industrial output of carbon, as if turning first world production "off" would even remotely solve the issue. I could easily get on board with eventual full scale modernized nuclear for baseline power + renewables (hydro, solar, wind where applicable). So, that's all well and good for a developed country. If there was a political will (there isn't) for it, and an honest effort to remove all of the red tape around nuclear energy (there isn't), there's no reason it couldn't be made to happen within 5 years.

But then what to do with everyone else? You're never going to get Nigeria, or India, or Indonesia, or whichever other populous developing country of your choice to do anything meaningful to curb their emissions in the very short (as in now) timeframe given by our current day alarmists. Also, that is only focusing on the belief that our measurables are even correct. Does anyone actually know what each country produces, in reality? I would say no. I doubt very much that most countries in the world even know how many people they really have. The US doesn't even know how many we have, we just take a census, and estimate the rest.
 
Jun 25, 2018
507
284
480
The part of the climate change argument I take most issue with isn't regarding measurement; the argument of "More carbon in air = we getting hotter" is a fine one.

I do, however find it very dishonest when the alarmism focuses on industrial output of carbon, as if turning first world production "off" would even remotely solve the issue. I could easily get on board with eventual full scale modernized nuclear for baseline power + renewables (hydro, solar, wind where applicable). So, that's all well and good for a developed country. If there was a political will (there isn't) for it, and an honest effort to remove all of the red tape around nuclear energy (there isn't), there's no reason it couldn't be made to happen within 5 years.

But then what to do with everyone else? You're never going to get Nigeria, or India, or Indonesia, or whichever other populous developing country of your choice to do anything meaningful to curb their emissions in the very short (as in now) timeframe given by our current day alarmists. Also, that is only focusing on the belief that our measurables are even correct. Does anyone actually know what each country produces, in reality? I would say no. I doubt very much that most countries in the world even know how many people they really have. The US doesn't even know how many we have, we just take a census, and estimate the rest.
We actually do know emissions, well the official reported ones.


Notice how long time USA is leading the race.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
193
157
230
You posted a video of CO2 emissions sliced up by country. The dividing by countries would be based on estimates, not reality. Especially when it's based on a per capita basis, and most countries don't know how many people they have.
 
Jun 25, 2018
507
284
480
You posted a video of CO2 emissions sliced up by country. The dividing by countries would be based on estimates, not reality. Especially when it's based on a per capita basis, and most countries don't know how many people they have.
Its not really that hard you see we just take reports from energy companies to figure out how much has been used we do not need to know what each individual person uses. If they are part of the country they use the suppliers installed so all data should be relatively straight forward. I do not see your issue with the way the data is collected.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
193
157
230
So if there is currently 9-10 billion people living on the planet, rather than the 7.7 billion current estimate, that doesn't contribute toward the heating of the planet?
 
Jun 25, 2018
507
284
480
So if there is currently 9-10 billion people living on the planet, rather than the 7.7 billion current estimate, that doesn't contribute toward the heating of the planet?
If there currently is 9-10 billion people instead of 7 billion then the numbers are not accurate. However the energy used will still be mostly accurate due to data given by the respectable services. Gas/electricity/oil
 

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
419
319
285
Jeeeez:

N.Y. lawmakers agree to historic climate plan