Report by IPCC: We have roughly 10 years to get climate change under control

Regulus Tera

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,102
Not really, if humans keep cutting them down then yes it will be a clusterfck.

But in hotter climates, they thrive and produce more oxygen up until 40c.

Once past 40c we are fcked, humidity doesn't play a factor but simply base temps.
My comment was in regards to the fact that Brazil seems like it’s gonna end up with a pro-business fascist as its president.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
10,920
Pack it up folks! You heard it here first. Massive Overpopulation isn’t an issue. The destruction of the environment, overfishing, grand scale production of food and other life necessities or the destruction of the rain forrest isn’t an issue.

And you clearly are a racist if you claim otherwise.
I know you keep wanting to talk about over population, but bitching about countries having high birth rates flies in the face of real time data and the fact that based on current trends global population basically tops out around 10 to 11 billion or so by 2100.
 

Sec0nd

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
719
Predictions if a hard winter is coming are notoriously failing even if they might have a statistical probabilty of more than 50%

To explain to you why a long term prediction of climate is probably wrong, just an example:
- Climate experts mostly predict a warming of the athmosphere
- Climate experts are pretty much unsure about the impacts it has on the weather (maybe if there will be a huge increase in giant storms)
- Giant storms might (or might not) be responsible for a huge scale deforestation of earth
- A huge scale deforestation will result in extreme climate changes

Also nobody can predict how and if algae will adapt to rising ocean temperature. We might be fucked much sooner if they all die fast. But prediction of ecosystems is probably even harder than prediction of climate.

Another example:
- The rise of sea levels (different distribution of weight, vanishing of ice) might or might not have an impact on continental drifts
- Change in continental drifts might result in a huge increase of volcanic eruption
- The increase would result in less sun hitting earth and the climate cooling down

Climate prediction depends on statistics and using certain models for intrapolation. I doubt that any of these models takes into account nearly all parameters that can influence climate. Rising sea levels might open new ways for currents I am sure nobody could even seriously include in a model in addition to the change caused by rising water temperature.

And that doesn't even include man made changes. Some 30 years we were all poised to die of cancer because of ozone holes covering the whole planet. Nobody can say for sure, but man made changes might have prevented this with a speed nobody expected.
What are you trying to achieve here though?

Make a point of the fact that such a global and difficult to fully comprehend event is difficult to predict with pinpoint accuracy? Okay cool. I'm sure we can get you a price for pointing out something obvious. It doesn't matter if it happens in 10 years or maybe 15. The point is that it is happening and it's going to reach a breaking point sooner rather than later.

You're sticking your head in the sand trying to ignore and wish away the problem because the predictions aren't accurate to the minute. I totally understand the rationale behind it because shit is looking bleak and it's a lot more comforting to just not think about it. But don't try explain away the problem and try to diminish the problem with small errors in the prediction. We need all hands on deck and rather than trying to discourage people from taking action.
 

bane833

Member
Nov 3, 2017
4,106
I know you keep wanting to talk about over population, but bitching about countries having high birth rates flies in the face of real time data and the fact that based on current trends global population basically tops out around 10 to 11 billion or so by 2100.
2100 is the time when we will already experience massive fallout from climate change. Mass starvation, mass extinction from plants and animals, extreme weather etc.

The point of getting overpopulation in check is preventing all this.
 

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
21,160
DFW, Texas
If this information is accurate and we really are limited to 10 years then we are doomed. There are just too many morons in the world that believe climate change is a hoax. We would need a worldwide revolution in order to compensate.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
10,920
2100 is the time when we will already experience massive fallout from climate change. Mass starvation, mass extinction from plants and animals, extreme weather etc.

The point of getting overpopulation in check is preventing all this.
Complaining about over population when trying to solve the issue of climate change is literally ignoring the main cause of climate change and who consumed the vast majority of the carbon budget the last 50 years and got us into this mess.

Population control would do nothing to prevent or curb dangerous climate change, advocating for it is beyond uneducated and ignorant.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population

Population growth is one of the least impactful causes of emission growth.

In fact, you could literally make an argument that if you want to curb climate change, you want people to keep pumping out babies. Nations with higher birth rates are often less developed and consume far less and have lower economic output, lowering their carbon output.

Complaining about population ignores the low growth rate of the US and the fact the US has the highest GDP/Carbon output in the world.

If this information is accurate and we really are limited to 10 years then we are doomed. There are just too many morons in the world that believe climate change is a hoax. We would need a worldwide revolution in order to compensate.
We're not limited to 10 years, 2030 was always a target for emission cuts for 1.5c targets.

And here we are with Republicans in control for the foreseeable future. Woohoo.
Until November?
 

joylevel11

Banned
May 19, 2018
840
We deserve what ever is coming our way. Too many dumb ignorant selfish humans on this planet...I hope they are first to go but likely it'll be poor innocent people.

It's terrifying and humanity needs to wake the fuck up or it's game over for us all. Unfortunately, most people won't wanna do something until it affects them directly in their day to day life. Until then they can just stick their head under the sand. By the time they think "oh shit we need to do something!" it'll be far faaar too late.
 

HarryHengst

Member
Oct 27, 2017
544
And that doesn't even include man made changes. Some 30 years we were all poised to die of cancer because of ozone holes covering the whole planet. Nobody can say for sure, but man made changes might have prevented this with a speed nobody expected.
That was solved due to the fact that countries took concrete steps to prevent it. And guess what: we aren't doing shit to prevent climate change, and as long as we have capitalism we will burn every single last tree if we could make a buck doing so.
 

ahoyhoy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,314
Nope, not at all.

It's saying we're all fucked regardless
This.

Even a full Democratic suite in government would probably only take us 20% of the way we need to go. Better than the - 20% of the way Republicans would take us, but not nearly far enough.

Americans really need a super hurricane to basically wipe away half the country before we realize our way of living is both unsustainable and contributing to these "freak" weather events.
 

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,715
We were fucked since man-made climate change was discovered. It's just the solution keeps getting harder and harder.

At first it was, "reduce carbon emissions caused by coal and fossil fuels" and governments around the world were like "Nah, it will cost money".

Now the solution is, "turn the world economy on its head in 10 years" and everyone is like, "Now hold on a second I thought I had more time. Can we just postpone this for after I'm dead?".
 

Fruit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
75
What happened to we’re past the point of no return?

Also, obligatory

That video was great and it reminded me that this exists, telling me that we've know about this since around the time my dad was born.
It wicked saddens me that we have these terrible problems that'll cripple or kill current and future generations of people and nothing was ever done about it so that never happens.

 

bane833

Member
Nov 3, 2017
4,106
Complaining about over population when trying to solve the issue of climate change is literally ignoring the main cause of climate change and who consumed the vast majority of the carbon budget the last 50 years and got us into this mess.

Population control would do nothing to prevent or curb dangerous climate change, advocating for it is beyond uneducated and ignorant.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population

Population growth is one of the least impactful causes of emission growth.

In fact, you could literally make an argument that if you want to curb climate change, you want people to keep pumping out babies. Nations with higher birth rates are often less developed and consume far less and have lower economic output, lowering their carbon output.

Complaining about population ignores the low growth rate of the US and the fact the US has the highest GDP/Carbon output in the world.



We're not limited to 10 years, 2030 was always a target for emission cuts for 1.5c targets.



Until November?
Sorry but this isn’t a good article. It not only ignores the negative influences of overpopulation on other factors than climate change (hint: we are destroying the environment in many different ways) but also the changing dynamics of first and developing world. Just because the US consumed the most ressources the last 50 years doesn’t mean it will do so the next.

The developing world has a growing middle class that wants to live a first world lifestyle which means they are going to consume more and more ressources in the future.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
10,920
Sorry but this isn’t a good article. It not only ignores the negative influences of overpopulation on other factors than climate change (hint: we are destroying the environment in many different ways) but also the changing dynamics of first and developing world. Just because the US consumed the most ressources the last 50 years doesn’t mean it will do so the next.

The developing world has a growing middle class that wants to live a first world lifestyle which means they are going to consume more and more ressources in the future.
So your issue isn't with population growth, it's with consumption rates.
 

ahoyhoy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,314
How will Canada be affected by climate change? Will it become more livable due to warming or will it be hit with more blizzards as the arctic shelf melts and produces more moisture?

Should I look into buying a nice plot of land in upper Ontario?
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
10,920
How will Canada be affected by climate change? Will it become more livable due to warming or will it be hit with more blizzards as the arctic shelf melts and produces more moisture?

Should I look into buying a nice plot of land in upper Ontario?
Basically any type of temperate climate would be a good place in a first world country that isn't beach side property.
 

YMB

Member
Nov 6, 2017
252
We should push towards that goal regardless, but it feels like Iv heard this a few times already back in the past to the point that we should be dead by now if we took their words to a tee.
 

Brock Reiher

Member
Oct 25, 2017
36,751
We should push towards that goal regardless, but it feels like Iv heard this a few times already back in the past to the point that we should be dead by now if we took their words to a tee.
It's still the same situation, if not worse, it's just now we're approaching the end line.
 

Brock Reiher

Member
Oct 25, 2017
36,751
As things get worse and worse, the poorest of people will die by the millions, and when they try to stop dying, racist Americans will get annoyed and will vote in someone who doesn't believe in climate change again.
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,191
User Banned (1 Week): Advocating violence.
every high level fossil fuel company executive from the last 40 years should be lined up against a wall and shot

they knew and they've been suppressing it
 

Error_404

Member
Nov 12, 2017
518
Guess I’m going to start looking for a large chunk of land in an obscure part or North America where I can learn to farm. Maybe figure out a way to preserve books long term or download vast chunks of internet for potential future use
 

Karasseram

Member
Jan 15, 2018
1,358
We let it happen though. I agree those people suck, but still.
Everyone let it happen to be frank. Everyone in the west has a lifestyle that's been steering us to this point. Bigger cars, More travel consuming food from afar that requires a ton of water to produce and causes lots of polution to point out some of the things.

But you can't expect anyone to willingly change their life style to one ascetic enough to actually prevent this.
 

Zabo

Member
Oct 30, 2017
921
I'm not optimistic. Especially when modern feel good capitalism tries to sell the dream that individuals can have effect on climate change. Government has to come down hard on the issues and just get this shit under control, no matter what the voters will say... But that wont happen, so we will fry to death.
 

Karasseram

Member
Jan 15, 2018
1,358
All of us in this thread are listening to scientists and it doesn't matter because nobody with the ability to do anything is doing anything.
Chances are people here are eating at mcdonalds, drinking coka-cola and driving around in a gas guzzling car using a lot of electric power on all the gadgets in their home that maybe comes from a coal power plant.
 

Brock Reiher

Member
Oct 25, 2017
36,751
Chances are people here are eating at mcdonalds, drinking coka-cola and driving around in a gas guzzling car using a lot of electric power on all the gadgets in their home that maybe comes from a coal power plant.
Using a car, using electricity, and living in a home are all essential to survive in the modern world. This isn't something that can realistically be avoided by making different choices on the individual level.
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,191
individual choices basically don't matter. we have a huge systemic problem because it's been enormously profitable to a very small number of people in power.

if carbon-free emissions had somehow been worth more money we wouldn't be in this position, no matter what any individual consumer decided to do.