By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Australia’s top climate scientist says “we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse” of civilisation

Bofferbrauer2 said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

Why was it stable from 1940 to 1980?

That was due to our energy production at the time. The sun did only effect this by about 0.01%

At the time (until the 1970's), most of the electric energy production was made rather inefficiently from very dirty coal. As a result they spewed tons of aerosols into the skies every year, especially sulfur. At the ground, these can affect our lungs and make serious diseases and cause cancer and was a major source of acidic rain and the yellowish, hard to breathe smog around cities with them, but high up in the air, they can reflect sunlight before it gets to heat up the atmosphere.

Once these got slowly phased out for other power plants (cleaner coal, petrol, natural gas and nuclear) during the 50's through 70's, the amount of aerosols in the higher atmosphere dropped down and with them their reflective power.

This is the reason why geoengineering is a thing btw, trying to replicate the effect by shooting aerosols high up above our weather systems exactly for this reflective effect. Volcanoes do it by themselves if they are strong enough, but that's too rare an occasion (last big one with a VEI of 6 or more was the Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991) to bank upon that.

It has a drawback, too. At the time, there were very few measuring stations in third world countries. But in those, the heating were mostly not interrupted since unlike with volcanoes who throw the aerosols very high and many more of them, the effect from coal power plants and other particle producing processes is mostly local or regional, not global. As a result any solar radiation management would need to be a concerted global effort to really work as intended.

Thanks man nice reading. I once read a book called freakenomics (pretty famous) that discussed the possibility to use machines to throw in the atmosphere particules to replicate the effect of a volcano. Its pretty crazy, like huge "hoses" hung by air ballons that would be constantly shooting a particle (cant remember which one) into the atmosphere. It would require only a few in the world and the cost would be of dozens of billions which would be very small.

Of course crazy idea with a huge change to go wrong, but interesting anyway. As I said, I'm a moderate in the subject, I believe in global warming caused by us, Im not entirely sure what if our % participation in it. But I think we should start to prepare ourelved to adapt to the new reality or how to maybe reverse the process through technology.

Around the Network
VAMatt said:
Zoombael said:

What if science is wrong? Than everything is dandy. We don't have to worry about stupid weather n ship. The knowledge gathered in the quest to battle climate change helps to make our lifes more efficient, healthier, ecofriendly, less wasteful.

What if the naysayers are wrong? Let's end the whole charade? Let's take the chance...

You seem to believe that there are no costs associated with this "quest to battle climate change".  On the contrary, the costs are massive.  They're the kind of costs that should only be paid if really necessary.  

Some of them may be necessary.  But, we can't tell, because we are continuously being told demonstrably incorrect stuff.  That's the problem that were discussing here.  Nobody is saying not to take the environment seriously.

What gave you that idea? See bolded. The costs are immense considering the scale. But as i see it, there is not much wiggle room, no alternative. You don't seem to realize the benefits it could have. You seem to think those huge investments in achieving fusion energy are totally wasted and we will can do well without it.

It isn't a question of "Climate Change, is it real?", but an endavour human civilisation has to put up with if it wants to perpetuate as a species. Time will run out eventually, no matter what or who sets of the alarm.

Hunting Season is done...

This thread just goes to show the lack of critical thinking skills among much of the population, at least here at VGC (though we can see the same thing in the people at-large). The TV, some website, or a teacher says that "experts" say something, therefore, it is true in the minds of many, even when the same sources are wrong over and over again.

Someone in this thread posted a link to a US government source that backs up the US government and called it proof that the US government scientists are generally right. I mean, come on people!

FormerlyTeamSilent13 said:
sundin13 said:

Half the world was on fire for the last couple years and y'all out here like "Climate scientist have been predicting problems for years now and we've seen nothing!".

Yeah, but arsons has consistently been the leading causes of all of these fires. 

Even if that were true, which is very questionable for certain areas, does it matter? While climate change can lead to an increase in wildfires in certain areas such as Alaska, the impact of climate change is also felt strongly within how fires spread and how easily they can be contained. Even if a fire is started by humans, these fires often wouldn't be much of an issue in the absence of the right climate conditions.

So what does the science say about the impact of climate change on wildfires?

VAMatt said:

I mean, come on sheeple!


VAMatt said:

The problem with this line of thinking is that we never do nearly as much as the scientists claim we need to do.  Yet, the doom doesn't come.  That's the fundamental problem with this whole "climate emergency" stuff.  Scientists announce if we don't do X by year Y, we'll see problem Z.  Humans institute 1/4 of X by year Y+5, but problem Z never occurs.  It's classic alarmism, and it is directly harmful to the environment because it kills the credibility of science around the subject.  

Without citing scientists who are making these claims, it is difficult to take you seriously. Tell me, who is saying these things? Which peer reviewed papers? And were these opinions expressed the scientific consensus at the time, or were these fringe opinions?

Last edited by sundin13 - on 22 June 2020

If Aussie scientists are right, we are doomed whatever we do, as US industries and even more EU and Japanese industries and cars are already quite efficient, so whatever improvement in efficiency and reduction in wastes won't be enough to offset the increase in emissions of growing countries like China and India.
Unless fusion reactors become efficient and widespread enough much sooner than currently predicted or planned.

Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 

Around the Network
Rab said:

We have struggled with a pandemic, things will get a lot worse if we dont change quickly  

Scientists from the Australian National University (ANU) have predicted that the climate will be out of our control in a short number of years, then temps will steadily rise to 4C above normal then go even higher, once that starts so many environmental impacts will occur regularly that eventually the World will only be able to support less than 1 Billion people, Civilisation as well know it will collapse, leaving our descendants dead or destitute

Im hearing this for at least the last 25 years, Im still here, and population keeps growing with no signs of stopping.

Get a life, you're wasting your time thinking about this stuff.

Recent News: 

“The Arctic is figuratively and literally on fire — it’s warming much faster than we thought it would in response to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and this warming is leading to a rapid meltdown and increase in wildfires,” University of Michigan environmental school dean Jonathan Overpeck

I came across this video on Youtube about who produces and produced the most CO2 and who's responsible quite interesting and very informative:

JRPGfan said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Honestly at this point wouldn't it be easier to try and correct the problem, rather than prevent the problem from occurring? I mean, convincing the whole world to just stop proudcing certain gases seems a near impossibility. Surely coming up with a way to remove those excess gasses from the atmosphere would be easier, no?

Tree's are a good way to bind CO2+others, and get it down into the ground, instead of floating around in the atmosphere.

Theres people that advocate, mass planting of trees as a way to try and save ourselves (atleast from the worst of it).
I believe such a methode is needed along with us, reduceing green house gasses production.

Ka-Pi96, the thing is I dont believe theres any easy cheap scientific solution, to removeing greenhouse gasses.
(it would be insanely expensive, likely to the point where it would not be done, unless it was this or death to the world)

The cheapest, easiest proven methode, is planting trees.

Let's make some math to gain some perspective here:

We're blowing over 50 billions tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. A fully grown tree which had about 50 years to grow normally weights around 15-20 tons depending on the type.

So we would need to plant some 2-3 billion trees every year just to cancel out what we produce right now.

While planting trees certainly helps, taken on itself it's just a drop in an ocean. What we need first and foremost are programs to reduce and avoid the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

It's sadly also something many right-wingers tout when they want to be seen as doing something for the environment or trying to discredit an opponents program over it's price, with programs for planting x 1000 trees. But as I calculated for you, that's doing pretty much nothing for the environment.

What we really need is that green energy and electric vehicles drop so much in price that they become more viable than traditional power generation and gasoline/diesel engine vehicles as developing countries will use the cheapest alternative to push their development.

This in turn would drastically reduce the amount of CO2 produced over time as greenhouse gases producing alternatives would become too expensive to use and thus replaced by greener alternatives which don't produce those gases as a byproduct.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

I came across this video on Youtube about who produces and produced the most CO2 and who's responsible quite interesting and very informative:

Your video misses global footprint per/capita for every country.

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

It's has been pretty well known that we won't succeed when it comes to climate change, even with this year with a big down turn in gdp it's not enough to keep us under 1.5 degree celsius. I don't think we will manage 2 degree celsius, but might just succeed keeping the warming below 3.

If the world were serious about climate change we would drastically build out nuclear power, water power and public transportation. Put a big carbon tax and we should had tried electrified so much we just could. This should had been done in 1990 it's 2020 and we still not doing this, even this wouldn't be enough to solve the climate crises.

I think now only geoengineered will save us, specfically solar radiation management.

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!