Human civilizaton will end around 2050

[Eldorado 39,221]

"According to a new analysis by an Australian think-tank, the crossover point for climate change will be here by 2050, writing that the “extremely serious outcomes” have been ignored because they “fall outside the human experience of the last thousand years.”

"The Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration describes our current climate change status as dire, writing that “planetary and human systems reaching a ‘point of no return’ by mid-century, in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order.”"

Full short news report at the Big Smoke (Aus): https://www.thebigsmoke.com.au/2019/06/04/we-now-have-a-date-for-our-climate-apocalypse/

At Vice tech mag: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597kpd/new-report-suggests-high-likelihood-of-human-civilization-coming-to-an-end-in-2050

The Paper: https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/papers

[tmcom 495]

Phew, this crap has no end, the 16 year old climate expert says based on some gov, body that the year 2030 is the crunch date, the doomsday clock says 2035, but no it is 2050, and of course if we p***s away a mere global recession or depression inducing 100 trillion to fix this, by covering the planet with wind turbines that use more coal than they give back in energy and cannot be used to drive gas powered iron plants to create it, since substantial amounts of electricity is still needed, and solar, same deal.

And in the meantime, Australia isn't voting for fixing global warming and suffering anymore, and the US, and more to follow.

Sounds like the last great ditch effort to get the mother of all grants before most countries don't buy this nonsense anymore, (except France of course).

Sounds like the dying horse or chicken little is giving its last gasp, and the loyal cult members so sure of impending doom will run rampant as more and more countries say, ***it, too expensive.

 

Better to die in a warm house with a reasonable quality of life than in a freezing house.

 

Yes, it will be fun, more countries vote against the green, expensive option, regardless of hysteria, the CCC fanatics, so sure of impending doom, becoming more fanatical and more angry at disbelievers, (what is next super mother ****s perhaps?) and we sit back with the popcorn, and poke at the fanatics, to see how much they run about!

 

I guess that human stupidity does have a high entertainment value.

[Farmer77 27,150]

IDK what thebigsmoke is but I think I will coop that name for the title of my memoir

This seems like a somewhat realistic outlook. The realistic argument isnt that the world just implodes due to warming as the denial fanatics would have you believe , but that it is a slow breakdown of civilization as a result of individual reactions to isolated changes in local ecosystems.

 

[Doug1029 5,961]

43 minutes ago, Eldorado said:

"According to a new analysis by an Australian think-tank, the crossover point for climate change will be here by 2050, writing that the “extremely serious outcomes” have been ignored because they “fall outside the human experience of the last thousand years.”

"The Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration describes our current climate change status as dire, writing that “planetary and human systems reaching a ‘point of no return’ by mid-century, in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order.”"

Full short news report at the Big Smoke (Aus): https://www.thebigsmoke.com.au/2019/06/04/we-now-have-a-date-for-our-climate-apocalypse/

At Vice tech mag: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597kpd/new-report-suggests-high-likelihood-of-human-civilization-coming-to-an-end-in-2050

The Paper: https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/papers

I come from the very scientific community the author is criticising.  He says climate scientists downplay the risks.  BUT:  what evidence does he have that I don't?  He sounds as nuts as tmcom and tortugabob.

Doug

[and then 36,212]

1 minute ago, tmcom said:

I guess that human stupidity does have a high entertainment value.

I agree, but only if you can watch it unfold from a safe distance    I don't know if the warming is being caused primarily by human actions or if it's just a natural cycle but what I do know is when politicians and scientists who are paid to support certain narratives - pro or con - start telling me the world is ending and they can help if I'll pay up... I get suspicious.  The irony is that we have cleaned up our industries without oversight by any international bodies and we are contributing far less CO2 than India and China but they aren't being perpetually harangued and we are.  Maybe we (HUMANITY) will cause devastating changes to the ecosystem and billions will die.  I'm not sure why that would even surprise anyone today.  People do stupid, self-destructive things all the time.  To be fair, we're also capable, when inspired, of doing amazingly positive things as well.  

I try to take the long view now.  In 50 years, if my daughter and her family are dealing with horrible weather and have been displaced by rising seas, they will grumble, blame ME, then adapt and overcome while they become stronger and more mature.  Life will go on.  If I had to pick the single most disturbing, depressing fear of this century, it wouldn't be climate change. It would be the lack of maturity and wisdom among those who seek to lead us and those who vote for them.  With all the hatred and venom in the air today, it might be nukes that warm the planet long before CO²  has a chance to end us.

[and then 36,212]

11 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK what thebigsmoke is but I think I will coop that name for the title of my memoir

This seems like a somewhat realistic outlook. The realistic argument isnt that the world just implodes due to warming as the denial fanatics would have you believe , but that it is a slow breakdown of civilization as a result of individual reactions to isolated changes in local ecosystems.

 

Possibly.  If survival depends on working together then I think maybe we're screwed.  OTOH, facing imminent DEATH may have a way of motivating people to try a new way   I believe we have created a system where overpopulation is rampant and it is going to be "adjusted" by nature if we don't find a way to do it ourselves.  Sadly, the next couple of generations may be about to become familiar with the true physical brutality of existence that our ancestors knew all too well.  We have lived in a sheltered bubble of comfort and plenty and have come to think of it as normal.  If this latest attempt at civilization falls apart, I think the greatest regret should be that we finally had it in our power as a species to avoid that fate but our base nature could not be denied or reined in.

[tmcom 495]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

I agree, but only if you can watch it unfold from a safe distance    I don't know if the warming is being caused primarily by human actions or if it's just a natural cycle but what I do know is when politicians and scientists who are paid to support certain narratives - pro or con - start telling me the world is ending and they can help if I'll pay up... I get suspicious.  The irony is that we have cleaned up our industries without oversight by any international bodies and we are contributing far less CO2 than India and China but they aren't being perpetually harangued and we are.  Maybe we (HUMANITY) will cause devastating changes to the ecosystem and billions will die.  I'm not sure why that would even surprise anyone today.  People do stupid, self-destructive things all the time.  To be fair, we're also capable, when inspired, of doing amazingly positive things as well.  

I try to take the long view now.  In 50 years, if my daughter and her family are dealing with horrible weather and have been displaced by rising seas, they will grumble, blame ME, then adapt and overcome while they become stronger and more mature.  Life will go on.  If I had to pick the single most disturbing, depressing fear of this century, it wouldn't be climate change. It would be the lack of maturity and wisdom among those who seek to lead us and those who vote for them.  With all the hatred and venom in the air today, it might be nukes that warm the planet long before CO²  has a chance to end us.

Nothing to worry about, me and others have shown here it is a money grab, nothing more, and so called experts since the 70's have been predicting similar events to what you quoted above, and None of it happened, globally.

Popcorn, damn, l am out!

[Desertrat56 6,018]

33 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Phew, this crap has no end, the 16 year old climate expert says based on some gov, body that the year 2030 is the crunch date, the doomsday clock says 2035, but no it is 2050, and of course if we p***s away a mere global recession or depression inducing 100 trillion to fix this, by covering the planet with wind turbines that use more coal than they give back in energy and cannot be used to drive gas powered iron plants to create it, since substantial amounts of electricity is still needed, and solar, same deal.

 

How does a wind turbine use coal?  The wind turbines in the US produce electricity like the old windmills pumped water, no coal involved, and no external electricity used.

[sci-nerd 4,045]

At least there won't be zombies.

[Doug1029 5,961]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

How does a wind turbine use coal?  The wind turbines in the US produce electricity like the old windmills pumped water, no coal involved, and no external electricity used.

Actually, when multiple power sources are linked on the grid, the non-polluting sources can increase the output of CO2 from the polluting ones.  The way to overcome this is to convert a huge portion of the grid to clean energy and to be careful how the grid and component plants are operated.

tncom is probably referring to the fact that the earliest wind turbine plants used electricty generated by coal, oil and gas plants.  The statement was true up to the point that wind turbines began producing more electricty than its manufacture required.  Now it is just an obsolete mene that deniers drag out to attack wind power.

Blast furnaces use natural gas and coal.  Coal is used as a carbon source to burn the oxides out of the iron.  It's a reagent.  No amount of electricty, however produced, can replace this function.  It has to be coal.  Open hearth furnaces use natural gas.  In either case, electricity can't get the iron hot enough.  In both cases it takes coal and/or natural gas.

Doug

[Doug1029 5,961]

2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Actually, when multiple power sources are linked on the grid, the non-polluting sources can increase the output of CO2 from the polluting ones.  The way to overcome this is to convert a huge portion of the grid to clean energy and to be careful how the grid and component plants are operated.

tmcom is probably referring to the fact that the earliest wind turbine plants used electricty generated by coal, oil and gas plants.  The statement was true up to the point that wind turbines began producing more electricty than their manufacture required.  Now it is just an obsolete mene that deniers drag out to attack wind power.

Blast furnaces use natural gas and coal.  Coal is used as a carbon source to burn the oxides out of the iron.  It's a reagent.  No amount of electricty, however produced, can replace this function.  It has to be coal.  Open hearth furnaces use natural gas.  In either case, electricity can't get the iron hot enough.  In both cases it takes coal and/or natural gas.

Pine logs are used as a reducing agent in copper smelting.  Would wood work as a reducing agent for iron?

Doug

 

Edited June 4 by Doug1029

[tmcom 495]

16 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

How does a wind turbine use coal?  The wind turbines in the US produce electricity like the old windmills pumped water, no coal involved, and no external electricity used.

It takes 150 tonnes of coal all up to produce one standard, giant wind turbine, and since wind fluctuates substantially, coal, nuclear or hydro is needed for a gas, iron processing plant, (the plant still requires a lot of electricity, and stable electricity, wind and solar, cannot provide that).

Victoria has an aluminum plant that requires 10% of our entire states electrical output, and it is currently losing money, since our dimwit premier keeps closing down our coal plants!

 

[Piney 49,154]

56 minutes ago, tmcom said:

I guess that human stupidity does have a high entertainment value.

Being a chainsaw carver surrounded by suburban rednecks with man issues I'm entertained all the time. 

[Piney 49,154]

15 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

At least there won't be zombies.

****!!!!! 

[tmcom 495]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Being a chainsaw carver surrounded by suburban rednecks with man issues I'm entertained all the time. 

True, never argue with a chainsaw wielding bunny, l learned that by watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Doug1029 5,961]

1 minute ago, tmcom said:

It takes 150 tonnes of coal all up to produce one standard, giant wind turbine, and since wind fluctuates substantially, coal, nuclear or hydro is needed for a gas, iron processing plant, (the plant still requires a lot of electricity, and stable electricity, wind and solar, cannot provide that).

Victoria has an aluminum plant that requires 10% of our entire states electrical output, and it is currently losing money, since our dimwit premier keeps closing down our coal plants!

 

Aluminum is a big gobbler of electricity.  We solved the problem with Niagara Falls.  "Our" aluminum indusrty is mostly in Canada.

If you're having to generate power for aluminim from coal, it's no wonder you're losing money.

The coal tmcom is referring to generates the elctricty needed to run the plant that manufactures the wind turbines.  But as wind turbines are now producing more than enough power to cover their own construction, that idea is just a little out-of-date.

Doug

[tmcom 495]

11 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Aluminum is a big gobbler of electricity.  We solved the problem with Niagara Falls.  "Our" aluminum indusrty is mostly in Canada.

If you're having to generate power for aluminim from coal, it's no wonder you're losing money.

The coal tmcom is referring to generates the elctricty needed to run the plant that manufactures the wind turbines.  But as wind turbines are now producing more than enough power to cover their own construction, that idea is just a little out-of-date.

Doug

No, we are losing money becuase every time we run the risk of a statewide power blackout due to Hazelwood being closed down recently, due to excessively high coal taxes, or royalties, (used to produce 22% of our electricity) our dimwit contacts our aluminum smelter and asks them to power down, which as you can guess causes serious cost blowouts with getting the furnaces up to par again afterwards.

We had such a potential blackout recently, and this happened which in turn costed us a substantial amount which even with gov, handouts has now made the plant unprofitable.

Or investors are unmistakably nervous, since another coal plant in NSW is due to close soon, and make this situation worse, due to more mismanagement.

Heavy industry cannot operate with wind/solar, that is a fact. And it is being driven out of our country!

We have hundreds of years worth of coal, close to the surface, so costs are cheap, but of course we are too dumb to use it,and send it away.

Edited June 4 by tmcom

[Doug1029 5,961]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

No, we are losing money becuase every time we run the risk of a statewide power blackout due to Hazelwood being closed down recently, due to excessively high coal taxes, or royalties, (used to produce 22% of our electricity) our dimwit contacts our aluminum smelter and asks them to power down, which as you can guess causes serious cost blowouts with getting the furnaces up to par again afterwards.

We had such a potential blackout recently, and this happened which in turn costed us a substantial amount which even with gov, handouts has now made the plant unprofitable.

Or investors are unmistakably nervous, since another coal plant in NSW is due to close soon, and make this situation worse, due to more mismanagement.

Heavy industry cannot operate with wind/solar, that is a fact. And it is being driven out of our country!

We have hundreds of years worth of coal, close to the surface, so costs are cheap, but of course we are too dumb to use it,and send it away.

Never blame on malice what can be explained by incompetence.

Whether industry can operate using wind or solar depends on the industry.  Iron and steel can't.  Aluminum could.  But first you have to build the wind turbines to run it.  Otherwise, your aluminum plant is seriously cutting into your power supply.  Sounds like Australia is underpowered to begin with.  If you're having black-outs and brown-outs, it's because you don't have enough power.- build more windmills.

Once it's generated, electric power is electric power.  There's no difference between wind-generated and coal or gas-generated electricity.  It's all about putting enough generators out there to do the job.

Doug

Edited June 4 by Doug1029

[Tatetopa 10,554]

Well, is pollution a more immediate problem than climate change?  We seem to be burying ourselves in plastic waste and absorbing all sorts of chemicals into our bodies a lot more quickly than the earth is warming.

[Piney 49,154]

16 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Well, is pollution a more immediate problem than climate change?  We seem to be burying ourselves in plastic waste and absorbing all sorts of chemicals into our bodies a lot more quickly than the earth is warming.

I never used plastic anything. Always glass. When a piece of my glassware breaks I browse the second hand stores and yardsales.  Same with hand towels, washrags and dishrags. I don't use paper towels or napkins either. 

I still have a Corelle cornflower perkpot I make coffee in. 

Edited June 4 by Piney

[Farmer77 27,150]

11 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Well, is pollution a more immediate problem than climate change?  We seem to be burying ourselves in plastic waste and absorbing all sorts of chemicals into our bodies a lot more quickly than the earth is warming.

Truthfully I kinda wish folks would stop talking about climate change. It seems we could reach the same goals with much less resistance if we rebranded the conversation to just be about pollution.

[Piney 49,154]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Truthfully I kinda wish folks would stop talking about climate change. It seems we could reach the same goals with much less resistance if we rebranded the conversation to just be about pollution.

All my sister's "climate change" whistlehead friends who use disposable everything. 

[kartikg 1,356]

Finally some good news. 

[pallidin 9,938]

Our civilization will end around 2050?

No disrespect to Eldorado, as he is only offering the article for consideration, but I have to say that this is blatantly absurd.

Sounds like a weird "agenda-push"

[AllPossible 461]

The rich will be fine. In fact most of the rich will be dead by then. People in power now will not be alive when this apocalypse happens so would they even care. Sad greedy world