🔒 Locked
UK-US-AU Scientists warn on catastrophic consequences of GLOBAL WARMING in *10 years*
Advertisement
Original Post
So, like a year ago I was arguing in this very same forum about the efects of global warming in about 50 years. Now, new investigations seems to point that we could be quite fkd up in just 10. You toughts? Please provide at least 1 source to refutate the folowing article. Spanish source Translation: "In ten years, maybe less. According to an international team of scientists, that's the time remaining before global warming produce a irreversible planetary catastrophe that could cause high droughts, losses of harvests and tides. [...] According to the scientists, when the CO2 concentration arrive at a 400 parts by million (PPM) in the atmosphere (something that according to the scientists will happen in less than 10 years) the increase of the temperature in two degrees "will be irreversible". Once reached that limit, the experts warn that "catastrophic effects can be produced" anywhere in the world, like for example the fall of agriculture, fresh water shortage, arrival of great floods, expansion of the diseases, increase of the level of the sea and the death of the forests. "These effects could be accompanied by others still more catastrophic, as an accelerated increase of the temperatures, the melting of the ice layer of Greenland or the interruption of the Gulf Current", a sea current that has a fundamental roll in the global temperature and the marine and continental life."
Then are are equally reputable sources on the other side. It's really annoying, and I'm not enough of a scientist to know the difference, really. Most of it is based on theoretical computer models (on both sides), which makes it tough to tell. Are we sure the heating up isn't part of a cycle? I mean, we had the Ice Ages. Or is it because of the cities and pollution? Eh.
Lol, Michalson!! That was great [grin]
Quote:
Original post by Michalson
Don't be so concerned. The US Administration knows the rapture is only a few years away, so you don't need to be worrying about stuff like preserving the environment you're living in or keeping the country out of bankruptcy and economic collapse.
Yeah, they probably already have a story ready about the moon falling to Earth within next decade, anything to keep the public afraid and obidient.
Michael Crichton's last book, State of Fear, was an interesting read about this, btw.
Quote:
Original post by Avatar God
Then are are equally reputable sources on the other side. It's really annoying, and I'm not enough of a scientist to know the difference, really. Most of it is based on theoretical computer models (on both sides), which makes it tough to tell. Are we sure the heating up isn't part of a cycle? I mean, we had the Ice Ages. Or is it because of the cities and pollution? Eh.
Actually there are many proofs that global catastrophes were (and are) an expected thing. We are actualy very lucky to have survived for such a long time without one.
Welcome to 1980? Haven't people been saying this for year? Maybe it just seems that way. Ohh the ice caps will melt and the earth will flood.
10 years seems like an awful short amount of time to go from comfortable to apocalypse.
I think I should read Crichton's new book, "State of Fear". I hear this is the sort of thing it's about.
[edit]Crap! Beaten by minutes![wink]
10 years seems like an awful short amount of time to go from comfortable to apocalypse.
I think I should read Crichton's new book, "State of Fear". I hear this is the sort of thing it's about.
[edit]Crap! Beaten by minutes![wink]
Quote:
According to the scientists, when the CO2 concentration arrive at a 400 parts by million (PPM) in the atmosphere (something that according to the scientists will happen in less than 10 years) the increase of the temperature in two degrees "will be irreversible".
Once reached that limit, the experts warn that "catastrophic effects can be produced" anywhere in the world, like for example the fall of agriculture, fresh water shortage, arrival of great floods, expansion of the diseases, increase of the level of the sea and the death of the forests.
"These effects could be accompanied by others still more catastrophic, as an accelerated increase of the temperatures, the melting of the ice layer of Greenland or the interruption of the Gulf Current", a sea current that has a fundamental roll in the global temperature and the marine and continental life."
I'm not sure if it's the bad translation, but there are many things in this passage that make me wonder if this is junk science.
First of all, they quote a magic number of 400 for some reason.
Second of all, they say the change will be "irreversible" when that magic number is reached. No scientist would be that sure about anything.
Third of all, they say that when you reach the magic number, suddenly catastrophic effects occur everywhere. Fall of agriculture? Death of the forests? WTF? I can see coastal flooding destroying a lot of agriculture, but it's not going to be a "fall". And ... death of the forests? Like they're all just going to keel over?
Also, "role" is spelled wrong, but that's probably just the translation.
Quote:Sadly though, it doesn't take much to call yourself a "scientist". Heck, my job title technically says I'm a scientist (because apparently computer science = science to the gov't, but whatever).
Original post by Tron3k
No scientist would be that sure about anything.
There's a lot of crap science out there from crap scientists, and sadly, they are sure about things they shouldn't be sure about(<--that is a crappy sentence[wink]). Unfortunately, legitimate science gets covered up by hyped up pseudo-science. The average person doesn't have enough background to tell the difference (not a bad thing, just the way it is). Most people don't know about the physics and chemistry of the earth to be able to distinguish fact from not-really-fact.
This report isn't 'crap science' - it's from a respected panel of climatologists: the BBC report on the story. The debate will no doubt continue but this report can't be simply dismissed as the work of a few crackpots.
Quote:
Original post by Michalson
Don't be so concerned. The US Administration knows the rapture is only a few years away, so you don't need to be worrying about stuff like preserving the environment you're living in or keeping the country out of bankruptcy and economic collapse.
Really? I thought the Bible said that no one would know when it happens. The rapture hasn't happened in the past two thousand years, what's to say God won't wait another two thousand years?
I know you were being sarcastic, I just wish I knew why it really seems like the administration doesn't care at all. I don't really think they're the archtypical evil-corporation-anything-for-money type; could they not get it? Maybe I'm just not cynical enough.
Either way, I hope that isn't their real reason. That would give Christians a worse reputation than the religious right has already given us.
Quote:I didn't specifically mean this report, I meant in general, such things exist. I didn't really look at this report too closely. I was just pointing out that just because someone is a scientist, it doesn't mean they know what they're talking about ("Silent Spring" anyone?).
Original post by mattnewport
This report isn't 'crap science' - it's from a respected panel of climatologists: the BBC report on the story. The debate will no doubt continue but this report can't be simply dismissed as the work of a few crackpots.
Quote:
Original post by mattnewport
This report isn't 'crap science' - it's from a respected panel of climatologists: the BBC report on the story. The debate will no doubt continue but this report can't be simply dismissed as the work of a few crackpots.
It was also the subject of an Horizon program a few weeks back, which pretty much convinced me we are doomed.
20 years to all but stop C02 emissions, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaah, never gonna happen, the world is too short sighted.
I was mildly amused by the fact that we've made it worse by cleaning up the atmosphere (dirty atmosphere was causing large white clouds to form, reflecting back sunlight, cleaner atmosphere means less clouds and more sunlight reaching the earth...), its almost poetic jusice really...
source: burton richter lecture notes by yours truly
the results aren't irreversible so much as they are 'virtually' irreversible; its just that even if we cut CO2 production entirely (100%) it would still take xxxxxxx amount of years for things to start getting fixed. Considering we are producing more and more CO2 daily, that means that we shouldn't be expecting the effects to stop anytime soon.
the results aren't irreversible so much as they are 'virtually' irreversible; its just that even if we cut CO2 production entirely (100%) it would still take xxxxxxx amount of years for things to start getting fixed. Considering we are producing more and more CO2 daily, that means that we shouldn't be expecting the effects to stop anytime soon.
10 years? Bah.
I propose we wait until about a month before it actually happens to start worrying about it. I mean, the world could be totally destroyed by then anyway... then we'd feel pretty stupid having gotten all stressed out about all this, wouldn't we?
I propose we wait until about a month before it actually happens to start worrying about it. I mean, the world could be totally destroyed by then anyway... then we'd feel pretty stupid having gotten all stressed out about all this, wouldn't we?
Topic Locked
This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.
Sign in to reply to this topic.
Advertisement