Humans Have Only 100 Years Left

ClovenHoof

One of the world's top scientist has come out and stated that this is it folks.

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

engineer and science writer David Auerbach has reiterated the doom-laden warning in his latest article.
He criticises the recent G7 summit for failing to deal with the problems facing the survival of humanity, such as global warming and exhausting Earth's resources.
Mr Auerbach goes on to say that experts have predicted that 21st century civilisation faces a similar fate to the inhabitants of Easter Island, who went extinct when they overexploited their natural habitat.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3131160/Will-child-witness-end-humanity-Mankind-extinct-100-years-climate-change-warns-expert.html#ixzz3dVQjN5qm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Steven81

Wont bother me, i will be well gone

whiskeyman

Would much prefer if the Daily Mail only had 100 days, let alone years, left

Menas

Good on the daily mail. They get one nut job 'expert' to come out with an outlandish, non-peer reviewed, finding and then publish it. Outstanding journalism yet again!

The day I'm having...any chance we could make it 10?

jimgoose

Good. Fcuk 'em.

Knex*

Might as well go out with a bang so.

Fossil fuels for everyone!

Mahogany Gaspipe

Wow that sure is a progressive idea you have there.

darkpagandeath

ClovenHoof wrote: »

One of the world's top scientist has come out and stated that this is it folks.

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

When have we run out of resources again ? sure 30 years ago we had 30 years of oil...

Samaris

*groans*

Alright, I -am- a climate scientist and while it's nice for once to see it working the other way, this is -not helpful-.

Firstly, he is NOT one of the "world's top scientists", he's an engineer and a science writer. The previous chap that said it is a microbiologist, aka. a "false expert". If I said "I am a scientist and evolution means we will transform into salamanders in 1,000 years", I would still be a "false expert" because I'm not properly trained in the right field.

Yes, climate change is happening, and yes, the only explanation that holds water is that it is anthropogenic in nature. And yes, even if we cut all emissions of CO2 and methane, etc, into the atmosphere right now, we would -still- be on a route to significant and semi-permanent change, since we do see a significant lag in effects.

What we can expect to see is a continuation of sea level rise, probably topping out at about a meter by 2100. This is due to what's called thermal expansion for the most part (water gets bigger when it's warmer - you can see it in action by boiling a kettle ^^) as well as ice melt from land glaciers, such as Greenland.

We can also expect to see a steady increase in extreme hot events and fewer extreme cold events - over Australia in the last fifty years, we see an increase from approximately 1:1 hot:cold events now more like 5:1 hot:cold.

We can expect to see more rogue events - big storms, etc. All of these will have a certain mortality rate, but we will adapt. Certain small island nations may indeed vanish, and their populations have to move elsewhere - that's already going on in two of them, but don't ask me for the names because I can never recall offhand.

Overpopulation isn't entirely a thing, or rather, it IS, but we can probably expect to see a gradual flatlining of the world population, topping out at about 11b. If you look at Japan, they have already hit the Stage IV population status.

Overuse of natural resources is definitely alarming, and we should be doing our best to conserve them. If we don't, we could indeed see a reduction in our quality of life, not to mention what we are doing to our children and grandchildren.

But relax, we're not all on the edge of extinction :P

arayess

ClovenHoof wrote: »

One of the world's top scientist has come out and stated that this is it folks.

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

I have nothing to add except I am in awe of your username and envious that i didn't think of something similar

RobbingBandit

100 days left more like. Dooooooooooooom from above.

darkpagandeath

RobbingBandit wrote: »

100 days left more like. Dooooooooooooom from above.

When is that comet hitting again ?

osarusan

Without reading anything other than the thread title and first line of OP, I'd gravely doubt that the person is one of the world's top scientists.

darkpagandeath

osarusan wrote: »

Without reading anything other than the thread title, I'd gravely doubt that the person is one of the world's top scientists.

Possibly the worlds top justifying his pay scientist ?

The Backwards Man

Climate change has been occurring for the last four billion years, only an idiot would question that, and you can't arrest someone for being an idiot.

Samaris

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Climate change has been occurring for the last four billion years, only an idiot would question that, and you can't arrest someone for being an idiot.

No-one, bar the most hardcore reactionary, denies that climate change happens, and has happened before, the question is whether -anthropogenic- (human-caused) climate change is happening. Actually, that is no longer a question either, but it's the bit that people can't swallow thanks to this idiotic "teach the debate" mentality that various media sources have, particularly in the US. There is no debate on it anymore.

ScumLord

The human race not only survived an ice age but thrived in it. Which is strange for an animal that evolved in a dust bowl plagued by dought. The height of their technological achievements was making a sharp stone.

Humans will be able to survive just about anything that happens to this planet. It's all the other animals that are ****ed.

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

No-one, bar the most hardcore reactionary, denies that climate change happens, and has happened before, the question is whether -anthropogenic- (human-caused) climate change is happening. Actually, that is no longer a question either, but it's the bit that people can't swallow thanks to this idiotic "teach the debate" mentality that various media sources have, particularly in the US. There is no debate on it anymore.

Got a number on how much we have affected it ? 1% 2% 90% I await with baited breath. But I highly doubt people getting paid to study the climate will give a negligible number that will effect their grants. All I have seen is models that are always way out.

sjb25

ClovenHoof wrote: »

One of the world's top scientist has come out and stated that this is it folks.

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

Il be well dead be grand going out to rev my 2ltr diesel

mikom

ClovenHoof wrote: »

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.

We could call it the Galileo law...............

Perhaps we could have them tried by the Inquisition, and if found guilty of heresy we could keep them under house arrest.........

The Backwards Man

Samaris wrote: »

No-one, bar the most hardcore reactionary, denies that climate change happens, and has happened before, the question is whether -anthropogenic- (human-caused) climate change is happening. Actually, that is no longer a question either, but it's the bit that people can't swallow thanks to this idiotic "teach the debate" mentality that various media sources have, particularly in the US. There is no debate on it anymore.

There'll always be a wee bit of debate on it though I think. Such as if Jellystone Park goes tits up, it won't matter what we put in our pic-a-nic baskets.

stannis

ClovenHoof wrote: »

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

Are you being serious? It's hard to tell with the written word sometimes. Ecofanatics are becoming ever more of a self-parody. That's good. We don't need to make fun of them, they do all the work themselves.

Wibbs

"21st century civilisation faces a similar fate to the inhabitants of Easter Island, who went extinct when they overexploited their natural habitat.". That theory has been revisited and largely debunked. The population of the island crashed after it was first discovered by Europeans. They were doing OK beforehand. Yes they denuded the island of trees, which meant escaping elsewhere was impossible due to lack of decent wood for boats, but they had adapted and the population was stable.

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Got a number on how much we have affected it ? 1% 2% 90% I await with baited breath. But I highly doubt people getting paid to study the climate will give a negligible number that will effect there grants. All I have seen is models that are always way out.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution was ap. 280ppm. In 2013, it crossed the 400ppm mark. That is an incredible rise.

We can use what we know about the chemistry and physics of CO2 as a so-called "greenhouse gas" (along with water vapour, etc) to calculate changes in the atmosphere. A greenhouse gas is one that lets in short-wave radiation from the Sun, which then refracts off the earth's surface (some of it) and is sent back out again. Generally, the atmosphere lets most of it out, preventing an excess of warming. With more "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, we are seeing much more longwave radiation being directed down again.

So, that's the simplified paper model. Observational evidence shows a sharp increase in warming in the lower atmosphere and a cooling in the upper atmosphere, which cannot be explained by Milankovitch cycles or sunspots or any of the rest of it. This is frankly NOT a natural state of affairs.


So yes, it's not just models, you know. Models are useful, but they are simplified programs and can't include everything. We only have one model that includes everything and we're living on that!

No, it's also based on decades of observational evidence, records, ice cores. Did you know that melting European glaciers have uncovered plants that haven't seen daylight in over ten thousand years? The fabled north west passage is now a reality.

SpaceTime

Emm I really don't think you can go around silencing people on their opinions about theoretical climatology.

The issue is where law makers fail to implement adequate policy which is all that matters.

We need to be moving away from fossil fuels much more rapidly and there's just very little political will to do it.

I mean we're still chasing fracking as a solution to energy needs!!

Humans just don't generally do long term planning beyond a lifetime. We don't really see things as a multigenerational species and that's probably going to be at least the creator of a lot of hardship even if It doesn't wipe us out.

I mean seriously were a bit nuts when you consider several of our nations carry nuclear weapons and would probably use them if pushed.

Supposedly highly organised civilisations like Japan managed to short term plan to the level of putting nuclear power stations in harms way in a tsunami zone ...

You might as well just do your best to live as best as you can because I really don't think the species is suddenly going to develop long range thinking abilities. Nothing we do shows that really at any level.

GavRedKing

"worlds top scientists"

/checks article....written by the Daily Mail.

F**k this, I'm out.

Samaris

I do rather suspect I should include in any post I make in this thread that that article is absolute, dangerous and unhelpful bull**** and no, a microbiologist does not get to use that he is a scientist, even a top scientist, to give an earnest and scientific view on climate change any more than I get to comment on our potential for turning into salamanders as "a scientist".

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution was ap. 290ppm. In 2013, it crossed the 400ppm mark. That is an incredible rise.

We can use what we know about the chemistry and physics of CO2 as a so-called "greenhouse gas" (along with water vapour, etc) to calculate changes in the atmosphere. A greenhouse gas is one that lets in short-wave radiation from the Sun, which then refracts off the earth's surface (some of it) and is sent back out again. Generally, the atmosphere lets most of it out, preventing an excess of warming. With more "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, we are seeing much more longwave radiation being directed down again.

So, that's the simplified paper model. Observational evidence shows a sharp increase in warming in the lower atmosphere and a cooling in the upper atmosphere, which cannot be explained by Milankovitch cycles or sunspots or any of the rest of it. This is frankly NOT a natural state of affairs.


So yes, it's not just models, you know. Models are useful, but they are simplified programs and can't include everything. We only have one model that includes everything and we're living on that!

No, it's also based on decades of observational evidence, records, ice cores. Did you know that melting European glaciers have uncovered plants that haven't seen daylight in over ten thousand years? The fabled north west passage is now a reality.

We know all this way to dodge the question how much have we affected the climate ? As a scientist one should know the sun has pretty much 99% input into the entire earth's weather system. There is plenty we don't have a clue about, I'm sure people can tell the rest of the class how ice ages start off not theory measured results peer reviewed and proven. How are those climate models going ? the doom and gloom ones that are always way way out and have to be revised on a 10 year scale for example. The predictions are not matching the data collected, Shock as the weather system is very complex.

Adamocovic

People, what a bunch of b*******!

razorblunt

Bring back the Ice Age, we'll all be experts in erosion and deposition of glaciers from the years of Geography in school.

mikom

But, but, the Daily Mail said it were the cannabis skunk weed that would get me, however now it is the climate change.

What if we sowed the planet with cannabis skunk weed and that halted climate change.........

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

We know all this way to dodge the question how much have we affected the climate ? As a scientist one should know the sun has pretty much 99% input into the entire earth's weather system. There is plenty we don't have a clue about, I'm sure people can tell the rest of the class how ice ages start off not theory measured results peer reviewed and proven. How are those climate models going the doom and gloom ones that are always way way out and have to be revised on a 10 year scale for example. The predictions are not matching the data collected, Shock as the weather system is very complex.

There is no direct percentage that one can give. I think you know that. "We have 35% more climate than we used to have" is a nonsensical statement.

"Input" is a tricky word. The sun also "inputs" into Mars, Venus, Jupiter and all the rest. So, why is Mars, not so much further away from us, so cold? Why is Venus, not -that- much closer to the Sun than us so hot? They don't have enough atmosphere (due to a range of reasons that are fairly irrelevant to this debate).

The Sun is the basis for very close to all of our -energy-. However, it's how that energy is processed that gives us the ability to have life down here.

Yep, climate models have to be reviewed and they -are-. Just like any other tool.

I am not trying to avoid your question; your question cannot be answered. "How long is a spoon?" I am giving you the observational evidence that has been collected as well as the theoretical underpinnings of what we are looking for. The models are actually not as far off as you might think, but of course they are simplified. So far, we are actually seeing pretty much what the most consistent models have been forecasting.


Mandatory disclaimer: I am NOT arguing pro this article, this article is bull**** of the highest order and a microbiologist may be a very good one, but he's not in the right field. We are NOT going extinct in the next hundred years from climate change or anything else he spoke of. However, the science is real and there, and the consensus is firm. Yes, it's happening, yes, it's caused by humans.

Grayson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

We know all this way to dodge the question how much have we affected the climate ? As a scientist one should know the sun has pretty much 99% input into the entire earth's weather system. There is plenty we don't have a clue about, I'm sure people can tell the rest of the class how ice ages start off not theory measured results peer reviewed and proven. How are those climate models going ? the doom and gloom ones that are always way way out and have to be revised on a 10 year scale for example. The predictions are not matching the data collected, Shock as the weather system is very complex.

Yet over 97% percent of climate scientists agree with the finding of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is occuring
2) Climate change is getting worse
3) it is man made.

And yes, they do incorporate the sun into their models.

Rhys Essien

ScumLord wrote: »

The human race not only survived an ice age but thrived in it. Which is strange for an animal that evolved in a dust bowl plagued by dought. The height of their technological achievements was making a sharp stone.

Humans will be able to survive just about anything that happens to this planet. It's all the other animals that are ****ed.

Some say we were down to a few hundred people who lived on the tip of South Africa.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/last-few-early-humans-survived-in-eden-scientists-say/story-e6frf7mo-1225896808315

The Backwards Man

Anybody can measure a spoon, but nobody can say why there were crocodiles at the North Pole.

Science is like a show pony, grand for riding around the house, but not much good at pulling a plough.

Spudmonkey

David Auerbach? Isn't he the lad from the Black Keys?

darkpagandeath

Grayson wrote: »

Yet over 97% percent of climate scientists agree with the finding of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is occuring
2) Climate change is getting worse
3) it is man made.

And yes, they do incorporate the sun into their models.

Both happen naturally, Now give us a number please if it's 1% there is not much we can do is there ? I have not said humans have not had an impact. I'm not the one shouting Doom... Because we say so without any repeatable data that matches models theory's.

blinding

Is the Life that the average human has really all that ! ! !

It won't be a big loss. Might as well Party like its 99 years to go !

Adamocovic

razorblunt wrote: »

Bring back the Ice Age, we'll all be experts in erosion and deposition of glaciers from the years of Geography in school.

I don't think rebooting that film franchise is the best use of our time, despite the educational aspects of it.

The Backwards Man

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Some say we were down to a few hundred people who lived on the tip of South Africa.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/last-few-early-humans-survived-in-eden-scientists-say/story-e6frf7mo-1225896808315

That's the one where Danny Glover got run over by an aircraft carrier?

Spudmonkey

DM are gas.

Nutjob gives his opinion. Some stock photos of the sun and chimneys throwing out fumes.

I could write this ****...

darkpagandeath

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Anybody can measure a spoon, but nobody can say why there were crocodiles at the North Pole.

Science is like a show pony, grand for riding around the house, but not much good at pulling a plough.

Earth's plates move North pole was not always where it was. One great continent broke up and formed all the others over time.

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Both happen naturally, Now give us a number please if it's 1% there is not much we can do is there ? I have not said humans have not had an impact. I'm not the one shouting Doom... Because we say so without any repeatable data that matches models theory's.

-There is no number-. You are asking a nonsensical question. Climate is not -calculable- in percentages. I have given you the numbers of CO2 increase in ppm from 1750-2013 at least. I have given a ratio of hot events to cold events in Australia fifty years ago and today. Those are just two examples.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am NOT arguing pro this article, this article is bull**** of the highest order and a microbiologist may be a very good one, but he's not in the right field. We are NOT going extinct in the next hundred years from climate change or anything else he spoke of. However, the science is real.

blinding

Bring it on I am just in the Mood to head butt God !

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

-There is no number-. You are asking a nonsensical question. Climate is not -calculable- in percentages. I have given you the numbers of CO2 increase in ppm from 1750-2013 at least. I have given a ratio of hot events to cold events in Australia fifty years ago and today. Those are just two examples.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am NOT arguing pro this article, this article is bull**** of the highest order and a microbiologist may be a very good one, but he's not in the right field. We are NOT going extinct in the next hundred years from climate change or anything else he spoke of. However, the science is real.

Yes the science is real, Like a lot of theroy's where real a few years ago. The big bang was a given say 10 years ago not so much now plenty of competing theory's it's not taken as gospel now. So you already admit then if the system is not calculable then it could be 99% totally natural and only 1% input via man's actions ?

Am not arguing the article either it's Boll*x

The Backwards Man

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Earth's plates move North pole was not always where it was. One great continent broke up and formed all the others over time.

Na, this was only (only I say!:D) fifty million years ago, the Earth looked much like it does now, but the Arctic circle was swarming with cold blooded reptiles and boozed up Brits abroad.*

*may have made that bit up.

alroley

lmao sure.

darkpagandeath

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Na, this was only (only I say!:D) fifty million years ago, the Earth looked much like it does now, but the Arctic circle was swarming with cold blooded reptiles and boozed up Brits abroad.

UK was also grass savanna like Africa at one stage. Earth's climate is not as set as people make out.

RobertKK

Climate change is happening, but one can question the extent that humans are responsible.
We know in the past 1,000 we had the medieval warm period, where temperatures were around current levels, then after that we entered the little ice age around the 1600s, and Earth has being getting warmer since then.
I am not saying there is not man made climate change, but it is possible most of the warming has been natural.
We should also remember the cooling that happened between the 1940s and and the early 1970s, when the concern was we were heading towards an ice age.
Scientists then were saying the evidence was so compelling, and governments would have to act given the consequences of this cooling.
Then warming happened, and everything flipped again.
The thing is Earth has similar CO2 as was present 800,000 years ago, long after the dinosaurs, but before humans were present on Earth.

The best things humans could do would be to protect natural forests like rainforests and stop deforestation around the planet, invest in more renewable energy and put countries like Saudi Arabia out of business...

darkpagandeath

RobertKK wrote: »

Climate change is happening, but one can question the extent that humans are responsible.
We know in the past 1,000 we had the medieval warm period, where temperatures were around current levels, then after that we entered the little ice age around the 1600s, and Earth has being getting warmer since then.
I am not saying there is not man made climate change, but it is possible most of the warming has been natural.
We should also remember the cooling that happened between the 1940s and and the early 1970s, when the concern was we were heading towards an ice age.
Scientists then were saying the evidence was so compelling, and governments would have to act given the consequences of this cooling.
Then warming happened, and everything flipped again.
The thing is Earth has similar CO2 as was present 800,000 years ago, long after the dinosaurs, but before humans were present on Earth.

The best things humans could do would be to protect natural forests like rainforests and stop deforestation around the planet, invest in more renewable energy and put countries like Saudi Arabia out of business...

Well we get most of our oxygen from marine plants and algae for example. And scrub out CO2 via Photosynthesis