‘High likelihood of human civilisation coming to end’ by 2050
- Thread starter steve30000
- Start date
- Status
Patch Lafayette
Striker
I wish Blep had had that honour!
Kent_Mackem
Striker
But due to greed, fear of losing power from making unpopular decisions and the ease of short-term profit the leaders of the big countries do little to address the issues.
Get Into Em
Winger
I'd imagine the last 2 posts will go something along the lines of:
Poster 1: Our lass has just passed. Food is almost all gone. I haven't seen another human in 154 days.
Poster 2: Ha'way man PICS.
It’s alright man, Theresa has committed to making us emissions net zero by 2050.
Nice token gesture, the least we can do for starting the doomsday ball rolling back in the 19th century.
Nice token gesture, the least we can do for starting the doomsday ball rolling back in the 19th century.
Lord Alfred
Striker
This unfortunately. Its still strange behaviour though when ultimately you're talking about the sustainability of life on earth.
First five years is just talking about it and the rest will be "outsourcing" our lifestyle generated problems to poorer third world countries.
Last edited:
Kent_Mackem
Striker
It doesn’t help that it is so easy to dismiss as “fake news” as that utter bell end Trump has done. Expecting the masses to trust what scientists say (or heaven forbid that they actually read the reports for themselves!!) when the head in the sand alternative is far easier and more comforting is wishful thinking. Added to which the changes won’t sit well. “Why should I stop buying cars with internal combustion engines?” “Why shouldn’t I fly abroad for my holiday?”
Tricky times ahead. The countries who signed up will never make the emissions targets. Not a hope in hell when there is still money to be made selling oil.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
Unfortunately by 2050 it will be nothing more than a token gesture. I doubt if the rest of the world will be at zero emissions and due to the inherent latency in the global thermodynamics the effect will be not be until at least 10 years later if not more and of course there will be substantial positive feedback due to methane released from the permafrost. Oh and decreased reflectivity from reduced ice cover.
Looking on the bright side, at least humanity will survive but our human systems will be well and truly fucked.
Last edited:
ravydavygravy
Striker
Climate change and robots/AI will have us fucked.
Interestingly the Syrian war is being blamed on the lack of water in rural areas forcing mass influx to cities and resulting unrest.
Interestingly the Syrian war is being blamed on the lack of water in rural areas forcing mass influx to cities and resulting unrest.
The Muffin Man
Winger
Course it won’t as like so many other things people cry fake news or project fear at anything that makes life uncomfortable for them. The tidal wave will be crashing across the country and they will still be in denial
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
One of the possible geo-engineering attempts will be to inject more sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to encourage greater cloud cover and initiate limited global dimming. One of our successes has been the reduction of sulphur dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. The problem is that this well result in the return of acid rain which can have a devastating effect on plant life and trees. This was considered by the National Academy of Science in the USA in 1990. So they certainly knew how serious the danger was 30 years ago.
Last edited:
defunctdigits
Winger
We're making lots of noises while doing sweet fa. Concerns are being assuaged through a tick box mentality. I think perception is slowly shifting but still not to the extent whereby people and the media are being called out for exacerbating the situation, well unless it's China of course.
defunctdigits
Winger
Planet is fine it's us that's (maybe) doomed. Science and engineering were major contributors to getting us in this mess and any solution they may come up with at the moment needs to keep the current system in place. The priority for our illustrious leaders is to save the system, hence the dragging of feet. The solution is for us to stop doing things but that would crash the system.
The news now reporting that two tankers in the Gulf of Oman have been targeted by torpedoes. If true, the end by 2050 seems highly optimistic.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
It is estimated that for the Government to achieve zero emissions by 2050 it will cost 1-2% of GDP which equates to £20-40 billion per year.
A recent poll indicated that the majority of people would be against raising taxes and/or increasing borrowing to finance the project.
A high majority of around 75% were against any further cuts in services to provide the funding.
It seems we want zero emissions but at zero cost so the democratic implications for any Government are clear.
The truth is our human systems are fucked but the cost in the future if we fail to act will be even higher.
A recent poll indicated that the majority of people would be against raising taxes and/or increasing borrowing to finance the project.
A high majority of around 75% were against any further cuts in services to provide the funding.
It seems we want zero emissions but at zero cost so the democratic implications for any Government are clear.
The truth is our human systems are fucked but the cost in the future if we fail to act will be even higher.
Last edited:
Doeboy
Midfield
Nothing at all to say that in 100 years we won’t have the technology to master our climate.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
If by 2050 our human systems have broken down including a global economy it has to be questioned how many of us will be around in 100 years with the means to produce and utilise the necessary technology considering the positive feedbacks that will take effect by then..
Last edited:
defunctdigits
Winger
Is there anything to say we will or just clutching at straws.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
I'm not sure people appreciate the scale of the problem over the next 30 years let alone in a 100.
The most realistic solution is to pump sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere which would result in the return of acid rain. The air we breathe will therefore become more toxic even if there is a temporary effect of global dimming.
In a hundred years it is very likely the permafrost will have fully released its methane content but there also millions of tons of methane on the ocean floor which will also have been significantly released. Methane is ten times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This will undoubtedly have a runaway effect on global temperatures. The other positive feedback will begin if temperature rise 4 degrees about current levels which will result in the microbiology of forests changing to emit CO2 rather than absorbing. Reforestation is a double edged sword and if this is undertaken too late may be like shooting ourselves in the head.
I'm not sure what the planet will be like in 100 years let alone what technology will be able to do to reduce the methane levels as well as CO2 in the atmosphere. If we are not careful the result could be a runaway greenhouse effect.
- Status
