Thread: Catastrophic Failure of Earth Within the Lifetime of Someone Alive Today!?

Here is another article, this time from the Guardian, citing a 90 page study published in Nature Geoscience journal (link to full study below).

Record CO2 emissions 'committing world to dangerous climate change'

Global greenhouse gas emissions on course to reach record high of over 40bn tonnes in 2014, study in Nature Geoscience says

Children born today will see the world committed to dangerous and irreversible levels of climate change by their young adulthood at current rates, as the world poured a record amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere this year.

Annual carbon dioxide emissions showed a strong rise of 2.5% on 2013 levels, putting the total emitted this year on track for 40bn tonnes. That means the global ‘carbon budget’, calculated as the total governments can afford to emit without pushing temperatures higher than 2C above pre-industrial levels, is likely to be used up within just one generation, or in thirty years from now.

Scientists think climate change is likely to have catastrophic and irreversible effects, including rising sea levels, polar melting, droughts, floods and increasingly extreme weather, if temperatures rise more than 2C.They have calculated that this threshold is likely to be breached if global emissions top 1,200 billion tonnes, giving a “carbon budget” to stick to in order to avoid dangerous warming.

Dave Reay, professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, said: “If this were a bank statement it would say our credit is running out. We’ve already burned through two-thirds of our global carbon allowance and avoiding dangerous climate change now requires some very difficult choices. Not least of these is how a shrinking global carbon allowance can be shared equitably between more than 7bn people and where the differences between rich and poor are so immense.”

The study, by the Global Carbon Project, also found that China’s per capita emissions had surpassed those of Europe for the first time, between 2013 and 2014.

It comes ahead of a climate summit on Tuesday in New York, at which the UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon will bring together heads of state and government from more than 120 countries to discuss climate change, and encourage them to make commitments on emissions reductions in the run-up to a crunch meeting in Paris late next year, at which a new global agreement on emissions is expected to be signed.

Emissions for 2014, according to the research, are set to rise to 40bn tonnes. That compares with emissions of 32bn tonnes in 2010, showing how fast the output is rising.

The rising trend has continued despite increasingly alarming warnings from scientists over the future of the climate, and commitments by developed countries to cut their carbon and from major developing economies to curb their emissions growth. There was a brief blip in global emissions growth at the time of the banking crisis, but this “breathing space” was quickly overtaken by an expansion in fossil fuel demand.

The growth in emissions also comes despite the much-vaunted contribution of shale gas to the world’s energy mix. Some supporters of the technology claim it will bring down emissions, because gas produces less carbon than coal when burned. But studies have shown that although this may dent the rate at which emissions rise, it is unlikely by itself to produce an absolute fall in carbon output levels. US emissions rose by nearly 3% in 2013, after falling in the previous five years, despite its shale gas boom.

As much as half of the world’s proven reserves of all fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change, the research suggested.

The study, published as a paper in the peer-review journal Nature Geoscience, called “Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets”, is a collaboration of research groups around the world.

The overtaking of Europe by China in terms of emissions per person - about 7.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year, the study found, compared with Europe’s 6.8 tonnes per person - is politically significant.

China has long argued that it should take on far less of the burden of emissions cuts than developed nations, because it bore less responsibility for the stock of carbon poured into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and because its emissions per person were lower. China’s president, Xi Jinping, has indicated he will not attend Ban Ki-moon’s meeting next week, as has Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister.

The change in the make-up of emissions contributions will be a difficult topic at next year’s Paris conference on the climate.

China and India were the only two nations to hold out almost to the last minute in the talks in 2011 at which governments set the deadline of the Paris talks for the sign-off of a new pact on the climate, to replace current national emissions targets that expire in 2020. India’s per capita emissions are still low, at 1.9 tonnes, but the country’s total emissions are likely to overtake those of the EU by 2019.

And to add to that, a few weeks ago Chinese officials pointed to 2030 as the year when their CO2 emissions will peak.

The full 90 page research article: ESSDD - Abstract - Global carbon budget 2014

I hear you Snoop. Thank you for interpretting my intention correctly.

Nice, I see some more great posts have come in. Thank you Alric and Nyx! Do we have any climate change deniers left?

Seems cold outside right now. Therefore global warming isn't real.

Also I went to the beach earlier this year. Doesn't seem any higher than last year.

Guess all those science things ya posted are wrong and just a conspiracy to prevent me from enjoying the luxuries of Pickups, Hummers, and all those lovely Unilever products. Who'd want to drive one of them fancy-pants Tesla-mobiles anyhow? Nerds, that's who. So if we just get rid of all the nerds, we can get rid of all this global warming nonsense too.

Global Warming might be a threat to the world. But global warming is more like a turtle that have decided to take on the noble task to become a sucidebomber, compared to the REAL global warming. The global warming of the ego.

There is many signs that egoistic minds today are getting more and more heated up all around the world. Just look at how many tsunamis of "selfies" that are destroying what could have been functional minds today. The narcissism and proudness is boiling closer and closer towards a big meltdown. Maybe this selfie-appocalypse will result in that the human race will elapsing back to the monkystage in the evolution. Until what once was the human race, then in the future will be this monkey staring down at it's own reflection of self-admiration in the seas of waste that is all there is left from what this self-admiring global mind had once created.

Oh, what the hell am I doing.. I forgot that I look so faboulus today, time for A SELFIE people!

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Okay, I agree that it would be very difficult to measure jobs under the "what would have been if scenario". Perhaps you meant something else by "global warming trying to go against capitalism?" I fail to see your capitalism/communism connection to global warming.

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

It may well be argued, however, that the anti-free enterprise element is not at the heart of the matter. This aspect may only be part of the action in order to bring the pro-socialism crowd on board. Ultimately, what is behind it all is probably the perpetual quest for power and control.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

I am truly amazed by this particular viewpoint. The newspaper has quite often openly expressed its opinion on diverse political issues in some of its articles. I have not seen any indications of supporting socialist agenda. In fact, I recall the Economist received heavy criticism on one of its special reports on socialist France. Moreover, they produce sound research, published as special reports in the magazine or available for a fee (Economist Intelligence Unit).

They pay lip service to free enterprise. Central banking cannot exist in a free economy, because central banks are given the solitary privilege of issuing money - and they may do so at their own leisure. Money printing, in a very direct way, controls what money is worth. And therefore the central banks exercise control over the value of peoples monetary holdings - and thereby over their subsequent spending ability. In other words: central banks control the economy, for as long as they hold the monopoly on issuing money.

This is a clear and massive obstruction to free enterprise, and every single person or organisation in favour of freedom and free enterprise should condemn central banking in the strongest terms possible.

Last time I looked, "The Economist" did not condemn central banking at all. In fact, they have a habit of applauding the insight and cleverness of central bankers, and the importance of central banking. Hence this journal, along with so many other media institutions, is formally pro-free enterprise, but practically socialist.

Thanks for the laugh DreamyBear! I almost want to say the same to Voldmer...if your only response to the deluge of sources is unsubstantiated conspiracy theories then this debate seems over. Feel free to back up your claims with reliable sources if you can though.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

Why do you think your opinions are so worthwhile? You simply don't know what you're talking about and you haven't bothered to invest any time in finding it out. CFCs were eating a massive hole in the ozone layer which was starting to have serious health consequences. The only reason it stopped worsening was because of a successful international campaign to ban CFCs. Your inference that it simply "got better", proving that it was all hype, is basically just a scientific embarrassment.

Thanks for the explanations, Voldmer.

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

But some of the policies have been effective in curbing CO2 emissions, as you can see from the graph which shows significant numbers. Protecting forests from being cut down for example, has an impact on absorption of CO2.

I don't know about the secret agenda behind policies. Politicians would advocate different things just to get re-elected. Unfortunately, by being against a particular politician or government policies, a lot of people disregard the issue of climate change altogether.

What matters is, in the very least to acknowlege that certain changes are taking place. If more people care about the environment and the impact our activies have, then we can start making changes in a positive direction.

This is a clear and massive obstruction to free enterprise, and every single person or organisation in favour of freedom and free enterprise should condemn central banking in the strongest terms possible.

I understand you may have criticism regarding the effectiveness of certain central bank policies, but blaming them for being enemy of free enterprise is a bit too much.

While they are independent from government to prevent being influenced by short term political agenda, central bankers are usually appointed by goverment and still acountable to it. The monetary policies usually aim to tackle inflation or promote economic growth and not restrict businesses. In addition, their influence on the value of a currency is not as pronounced as you may think. Central banks can only offer a limited support of one currency (let it appreciate or depreciate it against another) as they have less reserves to intervene on foreign markets than do speculators (banks that trade in currencies for profit). What happens on both domestic and foreign markets has much more influence than actual bank policies.

Originally Posted by fogelbise, signature

Backwards:
"My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who is set to become the Republican's representative for, and Chairman of, the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2015.

Really? Oh dear...
America - please save yourself from your imaginary friend in the sky.
Seriously, a politician spouting something like this in public in Germany would be viewed as a nutter, for whom there is no place in politics.
Not even in the Christian Democratic Union, our center-right wing party. He'd get slaughtered by the media.

^It is scary to think that he will be the chairman next month! Here is a little more humor and information on global warming below (short and funny)...

Originally Posted by StephL

Really? Oh dear...
America - please save yourself from your imaginary friend in the sky.
Seriously, a politician spouting something like this in public in Germany would be viewed as a nutter, for whom there is no place in politics.
Not even in the Christian Democratic Union, our center-right wing party. He'd get slaughtered by the media.

I know this is off-topic but belief in a God that wishes you to do nothing is to deny what would be His greatness in the first place. If you could be healed by prayer, why did God give the ability to learn about medicine, the power to reason, or to do the right thing?

Anyone who thinks we should ever do nothing because God exists needs to get socked in the face by somebody who looks like Jesus, shoots lots of heroin, and gives to lots of charities so they can realize exactly how fucking stupid they are acting. Preserving the earth and being good stewards should come naturally considering it is where we live. In fact, funny thing, but the Bible even says to be good stewards, so by all means yes, tell people we should continue to be as destructive toward ourselves as possible and think you are going to get rewarded by the all powerful consummate being that created you.

So sick of all these baseless arguments for the existence of science...

Originally Posted by FriendlyFace

So sick of all these baseless arguments for the existence of science...

@FriendlyFace: Could you clarify?

Originally Posted by snoop

I know this is off-topic but belief in a God that wishes you to do nothing is to deny what would be His greatness in the first place. If you could be healed by prayer, why did God give the ability to learn about medicine, the power to reason, or to do the right thing?

Anyone who thinks we should ever do nothing because God exists needs to get socked in the face by somebody who looks like Jesus, shoots lots of heroin, and gives to lots of charities so they can realize exactly how fucking stupid they are acting. Preserving the earth and being good stewards should come naturally considering it is where we live. In fact, funny thing, but the Bible even says to be good stewards, so by all means yes, tell people we should continue to be as destructive toward ourselves as possible and think you are going to get rewarded by the all powerful consummate being that created you.

It sounds like we are in agreement Snoop. That was my problem with Inhofe's infamous quote in my signature. If he believes in God, why does he think he should not use the brain he gave him to be a good steward of the Earth that he also gave him but instead thinks that we can do whatever foul things we want to the Earth and God will take care of it. Many religious or previously religious folks are likely familiar with the parable that I referenced.

Okey let's face the facts here people. There is no signs of anything like global warming, so let's just get back to acting like a perfect normal person. And dont start to argueing with me whatever normal is, becase that would just disturb my factualy perfect balance of comon sense. So let's just drop all the thinking that is going on here and I will help you getting back to being a perfectly normal person again. So let's just chill down, watch some comic and just try to act like normaly happy persons instead...

So let's just chill down, watch some comic and just try to act like normaly happy persons instead

Ok, back to normal life then.

Ok, back to normal life then.

Exactly my point! (and I did notice the picture)

Originally Posted by NyxCC

But some of the policies have been effective in curbing CO2 emissions, as you can see from the graph which shows significant numbers. Protecting forests from being cut down for example, has an impact on absorption of CO2.

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

I understand you may have criticism regarding the effectiveness of certain central bank policies, but blaming them for being enemy of free enterprise is a bit too much.

While they are independent from government to prevent being influenced by short term political agenda, central bankers are usually appointed by goverment and still acountable to it. The monetary policies usually aim to tackle inflation or promote economic growth and not restrict businesses. In addition, their influence on the value of a currency is not as pronounced as you may think. Central banks can only offer a limited support of one currency (let it appreciate or depreciate it against another) as they have less reserves to intervene on foreign markets than do speculators (banks that trade in currencies for profit). What happens on both domestic and foreign markets has much more influence than actual bank policies.

I'd rather not get into a detailed debate about central banking, because that's not what I want to use DreamViews for. But let me just point out that a central bank like the FED can issue as much money as it wants, and give it to whom ever it pleases. This obvously increases the money supply, and causes prices to rise (which de facto is devaluation of the currency). All the central banks do that in historical measure these days. Famously, the German central bank did the same betweeen 1918 and 1923, which ended with the total collaps of the German currency. There have been many other cases in the last 100 years (most of them in South America). Such activity destroys the value of all monetary savings, and makes winners out of spenders, and loosers out of savers. This type of motivation steers directly towards economic collaps due to the lack of savings.

Also, whether this is all done for the most noble of purposes (which I don't for a second think it is), or not, is really not particularly important. As they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

Incoherent uninformed rambling which can be dismissed with as little effort as you put into researching it.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing

It would be great if contra arguments are based on some data.

Here's a graph with historical levels of CO2 emissions and a few other quotes which show that plants and animals have been disappearing from our planet and not the other way around.

Originally Posted by WWF

Forests cover 31% of the land area on our planet. They produce vital oxygen and provide homes for people and wildlife. Many of the world’s most threatened and endangered animals live in forests, and 1.6 billion people rely on benefits forests offer, including food, fresh water, clothing, traditional medicine and shelter.

But forests around the world are under threat from deforestation, jeopardizing these benefits. Deforestation comes in many forms, including fires, clear-cutting for agriculture, ranching and development, unsustainable logging for timber, and degradation due to climate change. This impacts people’s livelihoods and threatens a wide range of plant and animal species. Some 46-58 thousand square miles of forest are lost each year—equivalent to 36 football fields every minute.

Forests play a critical role in mitigating climate change because they act as a carbon sink—soaking up carbon dioxide that would otherwise be free in the atmosphere and contribute to ongoing changes in climate patterns. Deforestation undermines this important carbon sink function. It is estimated that 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation.

Deforestation is a particular concern in tropical rainforests because these forests are home to much of the world’s biodiversity. For example, in the Amazon around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching. Deforestation in this region is particularly rampant near more populated areas, roads and rivers, but even remote areas have been encroached upon when valuable mahogany, gold and oil are discovered.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes in a video that many species are threatened with extinction. In addition,

At threat of extinction are
1 out of 8 birds
1 out of 4 mammals
1 out of 4 conifers
1 out of 3 amphibians
6 out of 7 marine turtles
75% of genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost
75% of the world’s fisheries are fully or over exploited
Up to 70% of the world’s known species risk extinction if the global temperatures rise by more than 3.5°C
1/3rd of reef-building corals around the world are threatened with extinction
Over 350 million people suffer from severe water scarcity

Global issues website

As explained in the UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook, the rate of biodiversity loss has not been reduced because the 5 principle pressures on biodiversity are persistent, even intensifying:

Habitat loss and degradation
Climate change
Excessive nutrient load and other forms of pollution
Over-exploitation and unsustainable use
Invasive alien species
Most governments report to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that these pressures are affecting biodiversity in their country (see p. 55 of the report).

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains the Red List to assess the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties, and even selected subpopulations on a global scale.

Extinction risks out pace any conservation successes. Amphibians are the most at risk, while corals have had a dramatic increase in risk of extinction in recent years.

Global issues website

The quote below isn't related to global warming per se, but rather human activity. I decided to put this here as well, since you have an avatar with a lion and may be interested to learn more about the fate of these big cats.

Originally Posted by National Geographic

Lions are dying off rapidly across Africa. These cats once ranged across the continent and into Syria, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and even northwest India; 2,000 years ago more than a million lions roamed the Earth. Since the 1940s, when lions numbered an estimated 450,000, lion populations have blinked out across the continent. Now they may total as few as 20,000 animals. Scientists connect the drastic decreases in many cases to burgeoning human populations.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

It would be great if contra arguments are made based on some data, rather than weird logical thinking.

If we have let civilisation slip so far that logical thinking is seen as weird, then humanity is certainly doomed!

Incidentally, data for the past two billion years are bloody hard to come by. Our best shot is digging in the ground in really many different places. This has to some limited extent been done, and therefore we know that plant life and animal life is doing very badly in recent times (last several million years) compared to in the old days (before the dinosaurs). There was much more CO2 in the air back then (nowadays it is mostly buried in the ground as potential fossil fuels, and in the seas).

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Here's a graph with historical levels of CO2 emissions and just in case you don't know, both plants and animals have been disappearing from our planet and not the other way around.

It's a bit pointless to show such graphs, since they prove nothing else but the intention of whomever made the graph, to give those, who see the graph, a particular impression. You seem impressed by the graph; however it means nothing to me (I would need to know exactly the provenance of the data, to believe them - especially because of the endemic deceit in the "climate change"-movement).

Originally Posted by NyxCC

The quote below isn't related to global warming per se, but rather human activity. I decided to put this here as well, since you have an avatar with a lion and may be interested to learn more about the fate of these big cats.

We cannot disagree on the horrible faith of many of the larger species of animals on this planet. And, yes, man is responsible for their demise. Humanity is essentially a plague, which has infested the planet and will likely destroy much of it in time (including humanity itself). But "climate change" has got nothing to do with that; we humans destroy wild life, because we spread and take away the natural habitats of animals.

Please note that while you were writing your reply I edited a few things as well as added an extra quote.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

If we have let civilisation slip so far that logical thinking is seen as weird, then humanity is certainly doomed!

Edit: I took out the weird logical thinking part while you were answering, as not to make it as personal but yes Voldmer, your conclusions are weird and again, not based on data.

Concluding that the Economist is a socialist publication because it does not condemn central banking is weird logical thinking.

Concluding that the more CO2 in the air, the more plants, and the more animals is also weird logical thinking.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

It's a bit pointless to show such graphs, since they prove nothing else but the intention of whomever made the graph, to give those, who see the graph, a particular impression. You seem impressed by the graph; however it means nothing to me (I would need to know exactly the entire provenance of the data, to believe them - especially because of the endemic deceit in the "climate change"-movement).

Unfortunately, I have reached my argumentative limits. Since you believe that none of the scientists, publications, numbers and figures presented so far in this thread are credible, then there is nothing more to say.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Unfortunately, I have reached my argumentative limits. Since you believe that none of the scientists, publications, numbers and figures presented so far in this thread are credible, then there is nothing more to say.

Why on Earth did it take so long to figure that out?

I have studied some of the original claims of the "climate change"-crowd, and found they simply are not true. Also, having worked in a university during the time when completely useless frauds were given "research" positions to advance claims established prior to the collection of the data, they should have been based on, and seen the frightening effects on actual research in the academic sector of the infatuation of politicians with the "climate change"-movement, I am fully aware of the lack of true science, which is the second most prominent aspect of contemporary "climate science" (the most prominent aspect being an insatiable appetite for power and influence).

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Concluding that the more CO2 in the air, the more plants, and the more animals is also weird logical thinking.

God almighty! Humanity is surely doomed. It'll be "death by ignorance".

You worked in a university? Surprising. What was your department and your position? Do you have a doctorate; what's your level of education?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

Oh, come on! You can't seriously believe that rising CO2 is actually good for us?