Is climate change going to start killing many people soon?
Apparently we are 2 minutes to midnight, but no one seems to be concerned.
https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement/
Shouldn't we all be frantically trying to alleviate the pressure that is coming from many angles and many different scientific communities?
Shouldn't this be a front page article with references to hard data? I saw a 20 second clip on the news a few weeks ago that we are supposed to start witnessing severe damage from global warming in 12 years.
Can anyone back that up?
And furthermore, if it is true, what the duck are we gonna do?
https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement/
Shouldn't we all be frantically trying to alleviate the pressure that is coming from many angles and many different scientific communities?
Shouldn't this be a front page article with references to hard data? I saw a 20 second clip on the news a few weeks ago that we are supposed to start witnessing severe damage from global warming in 12 years.
Can anyone back that up?
And furthermore, if it is true, what the duck are we gonna do?
Comments (53)
Sure.
Yes, and maybe pigs should fly.
We're already witnessing it. It's already happening, apparent, and taking many lives. Unnaturally-humungous hurricanes, wildfires on unprecedented scale across this country, with unprecedented death-toll, for example.
It isn't that it isn't already here. It's just that the worst of it remains to arrive, and it will only get worse.
Become extinct?
Michael Ossipoff
Never mind. When we're gone, the few remaining animals will probably be a lot happier.
If you are a pessimist, then one is likely to think that we are screwed -- now or sometime in the next 20, 30, 50, or 100 years. There are any number of threats--some natural, some manmade, some a combination. We could reduce or even eliminate some of these threats, but doing so requires that pigs fly. We could get rid of nuclear weapons. That's very, very unlikely. We could suddenly and sharply (like, really slam the brakes on) reduce carbon emissions, but that would in itself be a crisis for many people. High carbon emissions are woven into the world economy. Those with the most to lose (their lives) have little individual power, and those who would only lose wealth are very powerful.
How the details will work out of us all being screwed remains to be seen. It will, certainly, be VERY INTERESTING.
I'm just thinking like... Should I build a bunker or what?
Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
Worthy of Kubla Kahn's Xanadu dome
Plushy and swanky with posh hanky-panky
That affluent yankees can really call home
Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
A push-button palace, fluorescent repose
Electric devices for facing a crisis
With frozen fruit ices and cinema shows
Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
Of chromium kitchens and rubber tile dorms
With waterproof portals to echo the chortles
Of weatherproof mortals in hydrogen storms
The HIPERION report of 2008 indicates that the increase of solar UV at the earth's surface has pushed surface measurements to dangerous levels in equatorial regions: http://exa.ec/HIPERION-Report_files/The-HIPERION-Report.pdf
Those who fervently and arduously fight against one perceived flaw do no more than fan the flames they say they’re trying to put out. They feel righteous as they burn and all around them burns. They scream out with hate at everyone else’s stupidity while they flay them alive.
My point being that the idea of a singular solution to a global problem is almost ceratinly going to antagonise the problem due to the ease of viewing the problem as simplistic and one-dimensional.
The fervent are not great at expressing, or adherring to, rational analysis of any given problem. They just scream and attach to the easiest and simpliest possible target (often due to greed/jealousy.)
Humans are doing well enough. The fact that we’re concerned with multiple problems means we’re not as blind to then as we were several centuries ago - and the “environment” has always been a challenge for us because it is us.
won't you come
And wash away the humans.
And then at 5° we all just literally die?
Or I mean is that fake news?
So yeah I guess that may be possible, but you would need some engineering that I'm not quite sure I am qualified to do without a huge wad of cash to appoint others.
In other words we're ducked.
I think.
We don't all agree on what makes the climate change and to what extent, so we don't all agree on the severity of the problem nor on whether there is a problem at all, so a bunch of people don't believe there is a problem and a bunch believe that if there is a problem we will find out how to solve it in the future. Now what if it really is an urgent problem and we are driving ourselves into doom if we don't do anything drastic about it now? The problem then is, how can we all agree on whether it is an urgent problem that we ought to all tackle together now?
Many different models give many different predictions about future temperature rises, the climate of the planet is complex and we don't understand it that well, many claim to understand it but many of them disagree with each other, so we'll probably never agree on how severely the climate is going to warm in the near future. But there are some more direct observations that we can mostly all agree on, such as the extent and rate of deforestation throughout the world, the high amount of plastic in the oceans, the air pollution in cities, which all have a negative impact on our species and other species, and that's something we could change more easily.
But there are various forces at play who aren't motivated by living in harmony with other species in a sustainable ecosystem but by being "better than", the USA want to be better than China, China want to be better than the USA, various entities fear each other and will do anything to come out on top and the environment is to them a second thought that will be dealt with later once they have won. And this state of living in fear of the other is responsible for a whole bunch of problems on top of the destruction of the environment. So how do you convince the world to stop their mindless destructive race to be on top, how do you convince them to stop fearing each other and realize that they would have a better life if they all cared about each other instead of fearing each other?
To me the root problem again is fear, we fear others and so we will do anything to protect ourselves from each other, even if that includes driving ourselves to extinction. Fear is a useful tool to survive in a dangerous environment where predators can kill us, but on a global scale where we thrive fear is our worst enemy, natural selection could weed out those who can't stop fighting with each other but with modern technology they could kill us all before that. If we want to grow up as a species we need to overcome that fear, and if we don't then we will give up our seat to other species that better deserve it.
No. We're not going to die out. Study climate science. Avoid sensational crap.
I'd say the vast majority of our material wealth is dead weight and does little to nothing to make us happy, in fact an argument could be made that it makes us less happy. Yet we cling onto it for dear life, no matter the sacrifices that must be made in order to provide it to us.
I'm not sure how I would define this situation.
Quoting leo
Quoting leo
I think the problem is bigger than all these, but simpler too. Over the generations, but more especially in recent times (say since 1970), we humans have taken and consumed more and more - far too much more - from an ecosystem that can't bear the weight of our depredations. And because we won't give up the luxury we live in, or even slow down the trend toward even more luxury, we have a huge problem that we are too selfish to fix. And now it's too late....
[quote='WMO']The science is clear. Without rapid cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, climate change will have increasingly destructive and irreversible impacts on life on Earth. The window of opportunity for action is almost closed. Link to entire article. [/quote]
I would define it as having false beliefs about what we need to be happy. On a basic level material wealth allows us to survive more easily, so that makes us feel good, then we come to associate material wealth with feeling good and come to believe that more material wealth means more of that feeling good, more happiness, but that's a false belief, many with immense material wealth have told that it didn't make them happy, some of them have killed themselves too.
We are on a quest to always have more than the neighbor, not seeing that this cannot go on forever because resources are not infinite. An afternoon with a friend filled with laughter and kindness and mutual understanding goes much further in bringing happiness than getting a better car or better house than the neighbor. Some who have next to zero material wealth are happy, yet we keep looking for happiness in endless consumerism.
We have found out how to build weapons of mass destruction, we have focused on protecting ourselves from one another and being more frightening than the other, but happiness is not found in fear, happiness is shared.
There is also the fact that in our society most of us are forced to do repetitive, soul-sucking tasks every day so as to get a piece of paper or numbers on a card that we must have to get food and shelter. To escape from this modern slavery we drown our minds into mindless entertainment so as to make the whole bearable. Consumerism is the painkiller to this torture. Barriers are put into place to prevent us from freeing ourselves of these shackles, if we attempted to grow our own food and build our own house on some land we would be faced with self-proclaimed masters of the land who would evict us with force, and then again we weren't educated to know how to do that. We are born slaves to this all. Then we find ourselves powerless and believe that we can't change the way things are, and so goes on the escapism into unsustainable consumerism.
We want another life but there are forces that push us into that life, and we let ourselves be overwhelmed, and we know and feel this isn't right so we protest, but our cries are drown into the deafening march of those who believe that they will find their salvation in gathering enough material wealth, if only they can climb the ladder high enough to be above the others, and so it goes on and on.
This whole society is predicated on fear, we have built an intricate system that makes life good to some and bearable to most, but fear makes it unsustainable and at some point that will all come crashing down.
Quoting leo
Lately I've been contemplating the barriers you describe. I'm not certain what part of them is real and what part of them is a product of the minimal standard of living we are prepared to accept. If we accept that all we need is food and warmth in winter, what barriers remain standing?
The whole system is the barrier. You are not free to go somewhere and build your house and grow your food there, someone will come and say "this land is mine" or "this land belongs to such or such organization and you have no right to be there" then call the cops on you if you don't want to move somewhere else where you will be faced with the same problem again. To gain the freedom of living anywhere, you first have to be a slave of the system for a given number of years until you manage to accumulate enough pieces of paper or numbers on an account, then give all those in exchange for having the freedom to live somewhere. And then your whole life you were never taught about building your own house or growing your own food or living in self-sustenance, you were taught to function as a part of the system which involves being a cog in a machine and not a self-sustaining individual, so that's another barrier which you have to overcome, and by that time it feels easier to remain part of the system.
We are forced to take part in that unsustainable machine, then those who come out on top with a lot of properties and numbers in their account want to keep what they have worked so hard to gain, they don't give that up or share that easily, so the others have to spend more and more effort to have a given standard of living, spend more and more resources, which takes its toll on the environment.
We could have food and warmth and comfort with a much lesser impact on the environment if we helped each other and cared about each other, and if we were taught and allowed to sustain ourselves to a greater extent, rather than taking part in this more and more straining and destructive rat race, but we can't do that without changing the whole system, laws, education, which requires to stop fearing each other and stop seeing the other as the enemy. We live as if our countries were at war with one another, we compete and have to be the best, spending so much effort and resources in the process, and meanwhile we and the environment suffer.
Wouldn't it still be more efficient in terms of energy consumption and land preservation to switch to a more sustainable energy source than sucking huge quantities of the earth out of the ground, refining it in a process that creates non consumable waste, and dissipating it into thin air?
Quoting Lif3r
First of all, you definitely will die whether the climate warms up or not. You, along with everybody else. Nobody gets out of here alive. Second, If you live a normal life span, and if you are at least 25 years old, you have already lived 25% to 33% of your longest likely lifespan.
If you can choose where to live out your remaining 50 to 70 years of life, chose to live either in southern Canada or the northern tier of states where there will still be cold weather in the winter. Avoid the southern states where it will be just too fucking hot. Big cities tend to be heat islands, which is good in the winter, bad in the summer. A smaller sized city of 100,000 population would be good. Duluth, Sheboygan, Green Bay, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, upstate New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts (not Boston--heat island and extensive flooding from rising oceans), Maine. Get there early because you won't be the only one heading north.
If you can buy a small house, insulate heavily. A white reflective roof would be good. Plant a deciduous tree or two for shade, but leave room for a garden. Live simply. Enjoy life as much as possible.
With those "minor adjustments" to your life style, you'll make it as well as anybody will.
We probably won't reach a 5º C (not Fahrenheit) global temperature rise until late in this century. I'd expect chaos as life becomes unsustainable in the equatorial parts of the world and the areas immediately north and south of those regions. Flooding, fire, famine... It will be a very interesting time to be alive.
Yes, definitely squared. But the unsustainable model is the foundation of the world economy. That doesn't mean that change is impossible, it means that change is extremely difficult because there are so many vested interests in the existing arrangement. It isn't just oil magnates. Its everybody who likes the convenience of driving, flying, plastics, and all that.
Quoting leo
Exactly.
Quoting leo
Exactly.
And so the smart thing to do would be to prepare similarly to how Crank mentioned on the chance that there is at least a possibility.
I think an even smarter thing to do would be to try to change things rather than believing we can't put down economics from its pedestal, it's not easy and that would be a grand paradigm shift, but a much needed one, and it's possible, if we have been able to wake up about this state of affairs then potentially others can too. Change is brought about by a desire for change, and by believing that we can change things. And then after a lot of perseverance we eventually succeed. First they ignore you, ...
Those of you who are concerned about climate change simply believe in the modern mythology that they can.
If global warming is real, and we are going to eperience fallout as a result, it would be wise to accomodate the possibility.
If it is fake, and one accommodates the possibility, then what is actually lost other than a possible relocation and perhaps a stock pile of water and weapons?
If you don't prepare for it, that would be similar to refusing to wear safety goggles because you feel confident, even though there is a chance that shrapnel could blind you at a moment's notice.
Personally... I wear safety goggles.
If you have a gun you prolong their existence.
If you don't have a gun you risk your protection.
So you buy a gun.
However at the same time I am considering possibilities here, and while I cannot say that the evidence I have researched or heard is 100% foolproof and reputable, I have to consider that it is in order to attempt to survive and keep my family and my children alive should things go the way many people have publicly predicted.
Or am I just over reacting?
I don't think so.
The truth about my intentions here is that I am not actually trying to have anyone convince me otherwise. As far as debate is concerned, there is none really to be had with me because I have already decided.
More so I am presenting these thoughts to this group of people in hopes that they begin to consider this line of thinking.
Because I like your minds here. So I offer my understandings.
So I do indeed know what safety goggles are.
My view of extinction of a species is that all is as God wills it.
My view of the human function in existence on Earth is that if God wills it then there is nothing we can do about it.
The Earth is God's footstool. We humans only occupy it.
There have been several Ice Ages over the past millions of years of Geological Time. Our modern Science has proved it to us.
The warming scenario that we are presently within is simply the other side of the Ice Age coin.
Warming seems to me to be perfectly normal and completely unavoidable by the insects and humans that occupy God's footstool here.
Lots of Africans will starve as that continent becomes warmer and dryer.
We should therefore come up with a treaty with the Russians and Chinese to invest more in Africa to save the peoples (plural) there from annihilation.
My solutions to problems are practical not idealistic. Fighting climate change is idealistic and a flawed strategy.
My solutions result from my Romantic Philosophy of the God Of Philosophy -- the Prime Mover of Aristotle and the First Cause of Aquinas.
Except that it isn't. What would be normal is a much, much smaller and slower rise in CO2, and a consequent smaller and slower rise in global warming.
Has the earth ever gotten very hot before quite quickly? Apparently, but the cause was geological: massive volcanism. Have their been mass extinctions before? There have - 5 of them. They were the result of rare cosmic events (the big asteroid that landed in the oily swamp of the Yucatan peninsula, started toxic burns, and eventually killed off the dinosaurs or volcanism (the acidity of the oceans became very extreme and just about everything swimming in it died). The 6th extinction is our fault, and if things go very badly, will include us. This cycle of global warming wasn't unavoidable (still may be reducible).
If you are going to reference the earth as god's footstool (OT imagery) then mention another OT reference: People are directed by god to be stewards of the earth.
I think saying it is as God wills it is an excuse to not change the way things are, an excuse to not change what we believe is out of our control. But a lot that was believed impossible turned out to be possible, so I don't believe man is unable to have an impact on the climate.
There is a lot we can do practically to live in harmony with the ecosystem, in a sustainable way, that's not idealistic. Maybe we are little responsible for the recent global warming, maybe we are a lot responsible, in any case there is a lot we can change about our ways if we don't want to go extinct one way or the other.
What would be normal, I think, is a very slow drop in atmospheric CO2 concentration. What primarily drove the alternation between the glacial and interglacial periods over the last few million years were the Milankovitch cycles. CO2 concentration goes along for the ride (as well as ice-albedo, also providing a feedback, and hysteresis, to the climate system). The last glacial period ended about 14 millennia ago, and the global temperature peaked around 7 millennia ago, during the Holocene Climate Optimum. Since then, the global temperature slowly fell down until roughly one and a half century ago. During the last few decades, the global temperature rose up very fast as much as it had fallen over the previous seven millennia (about 1°C). This occurred at the same time when we increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than 40% and is explained by it, and also, to a lesser degree, by the increase in concentration of other non-condensable greenhouse gases such a methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The recent warming is thus, indeed, quite unnatural.
We don't now exactly, which is why the IPCC, for instance, provides a probability density function for climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing. The warming that we can expect to occur as a consequence of doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 concentration (and thus generating a forcing of 4W/m^2) thus is likely to be between 1.5°C to 4.5°C.
Or maybe a very small rise over the next few centuries.
The atmospheric CO2 concetration rose from about 260ppm, ten millennia ago, to about 275ppm, two centuries ago. It then shot up to over 400ppm following a curve that matches the global anthropogenic emmissions with an almost perfect correlation.
Ah, the God of Philosophy. I believe his name is Loki, otherwise known as the Trickster...;)
The most fundamental principle of it is "No man can tell another what to do." This is way different than anything that has come out of Europe or Asia in philosophy.
Trying to change something that cannot be changed is an exercise in futility.
Futilely wasting precious resources on reversing climate change is a terrible waste not conservation.
Mankind currently is actively reversing the natural trend in climate change (from slow cooling to fast greenhouse warming) through wasting non-renewable fossil fuel reserves.
You believe it cannot be changed, that doesn't mean it cannot
I was replying to your claim that reversing climate change is a waste of precious resources. You are claiming this because you also seemingly believe that mankind doesn't have the power to prevent climate change. But, as I've argued, it is our massive consumption of fossil fuels that currently drives the unnaturally fast rate of global warming (in opposition to the natural Holocene cooling trend that had taken place since the Climatic Optimum, about seven millennia ago, up until the industrial revolution). Taking this fact into account directly refutes the main premise of your argument.
I don't believe it can, I believe you cannot know it can't. I am keeping an open mind, you are not. If we were to destroy all trees and vegetation on Earth, I believe that would have quite an impact on a lot of things. I believe that what we do has an impact on things, and I believe that what we believe has an impact on what we do and what we don't do. And I believe that a lot of things that were believed impossible turned out to be possible.
If we all believe we can't change it, then we will interpret all changes as not originating from us, believing we have no control over our fate, that we are just the toy of some higher power. Whereas if we believe we can change it, we will actively try to understand how the climate changes and what is it that make it change, and then maybe it will turn out that we can change it. But in a self-fulfilling prophecy, if we believe like you that we can't change it then we will just do whatever, and maybe go extinct as we 'see' that it was the will of some higher power and that we couldn't change it anyway. You are promoting the belief that we are powerless and that's just an excuse to remain powerless about whatever happens.
It is better, that our planet is warming up, then cooling.
Because heat could be transfered into electricity.
Also tress grow faster if we have more C02 and heat.
I am not bothering with warming climate at all.
*Saw a documentary last night on soil erosion and the extermination of all life in the soil due to pesticides. Serious stuff.