Global Warming The End is Nigh ? | Page 3 | Vital Football

Global Warming The End is Nigh ?

Over 15,000 of the world's top scientists have signed a warning paper in Bonne Germany today. It warns of future human misery if population growth and consumption of resources continues at current levels. Only minor improvements in emissions have been made since the last warning in 1992 and they go nowhere near to solving the problem. The hole in the ozone layer has been repaired but CO2 and global warming is the issue now along with unsustainable population growth .
 
Neither India or China will intriduce carbon future/offset trading, they won't tax it either - that means that the Worlds biggest producers are simply sticking two fingers up to the the enviromenalist lobby and of course the rest of the World..

The US, despite now ackowleding that it's impact their weather, refuse to budge.

The Pope should stand up and talking about contraception and responsible breeding - but that won't happen either.

Technology as it's already done so will come up with some answers, but not all. And of course, not all warming has been a disaster, eco systems are adapting and some even thriving - but if we keep up our voracious appetite for resources and don't improve sustainability and make energy use more effecient, then the side effects will just keep mounting up.

The only comfort we can take in the West is that the worst of the effects are being bourne by teh Worlds poorest...now aren't we lucky?

 
I hear about billions in spending and investment in the future. Infrastructure, houses etc. But what is the future ? If our climate in this country manages to continue sustaining human life, are we going to see massive immigration from areas in the world that have burnt up ? Not literally but to a point of being unsuitable for the population.

If the culprits continue to pump CO2 into the air without controls what will the future be ? The figure has moved from a 1.5 target to 2 degrees , that is too high and we already know the potential effect of 3 degrees. That's a 2100 target. What about 2200 and so on. ?

It's all well and good saying our sun has got another 4 billion years left in it. But how many years has our planets environment got left in the context of how long it's been sustainable up until now ?
 
Nick Real Deal - 15/11/2017 13:42

I hear about billions in spending and investment in the future. Infrastructure, houses etc. But what is the future ? If our climate in this country manages to continue sustaining human life, are we going to see massive immigration from areas in the world that have burnt up ? Not literally but to a point of being unsuitable for the population.

If the culprits continue to pump CO2 into the air without controls what will the future be ? The figure has moved from a 1.5 target to 2 degrees , that is too high and we already know the potential effect of 3 degrees. That's a 2100 target. What about 2200 and so on. ?

It's all well and good saying our sun has got another 4 billion years left in it. But how many years has our planets environment got left in the context of how long it's been sustainable up until now ?
Click to expand...

dunno. Pass...

If the Worlds political leaders can't agree on anything, then we're pretty much screwed - and even when they do agree, it only takes one very large dickhead to disagree with the overwhelming weight of the scientific body and it all counts for diddly squat....
 
Thing is if the planet becomes uninhabitable within 200 years and there is no reversing it . It begs the question.....whats in anything ?
 
Nick Real Deal - 15/11/2017 15:54

Thing is if the planet becomes uninhabitable within 200 years and there is no reversing it . It begs the question.....whats in anything ?
Click to expand...

Population collapse will save the planet.....or at least transition it to its next stage.

It's not the big things that will wipe us out. It's the next epidemic.
 
80deg16minW - 15/11/2017 16:25

10, maybe 15, minutes.
Click to expand...

As a percentage of how long the planet has been habitable that might be about right.

If the scientists knew it was only 200 years, would they tell us ?
 
Scientists are warning if global warming is left unchecked by 2080 50 % of plants and 33 % of animals will be lost. Tropical disease from insects like mozzies etc will become a problem. Asthma will be more prevalent, the oceans will become acidic and many species will die out.

The ice masses at the poles reflect sunlight and heat effectively throwing it back. The heat will be absorbed into the seas instead as the ice melts and reduces in size.

Extremes in weather with hurricanes, lightning and flooding being increased. As far as I understand it, species will migrate north to less extreme temps, that will include humans I guess.
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-world-population-heading-toward-collapse-2017-7

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-great-contraction-experts-predict-global-population-will-plateau-a-795479.html
 
Bt the probabilities say that it won't be fertility rates that significantly affect global population figures. It will be: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/02/19/bill-gates-warns-of-epidemic-that-will-kill-over-30-million-people/#49c1eda2282f
 
when climate change, turns into a debate about population growth, you know there is a problem, the fact is yes the emerging powerhouse nations are poisoning the planet and chewing every resource available, true that they are also two of the largest populations.

But the old established order really has not done much to prevent it other then give them huge sums of investments and grants to keep going.

This particular debate is not related to science but politics.

15,000 scientists is that many.. who knows, but the facts are the very chemicals used to replace the compounds claimed to destroy the ozone layer are far more effective the co2 in producing local heating due to solar irradiation.. Yes folks our new air conditioners and fridges are very naughty.

Can people now start realising that cause and effect cannot necessarily solve such issues. WHEN POLITICS demand an outcome that favours a particular industry

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars/


Did you know that 1 liter of diesel contains more energy than one liter of petrol, did you know it also contains more carbon.. and its more poisonous as it produces Nitrous oxide
 
This has nothing to do with the growth of specific populations. That response is typical and more political than anything yet written on this thread.

It is a global problem. Consumption is also a global problem. Disease is a global problem. Until the us vs. them political bull**** vanishes nothing will be done about anything.
 
80deg16minW - 15/11/2017 18:36

This has nothing to do with the growth of specific populations. That response is typical and more political than anything yet written on this thread.

It is a global problem. Consumption is also a global problem. Disease is a global problem. Until the us vs. them political bull**** vanishes nothing will be done about anything.
Click to expand...

so quoting a scientist who states how the EU misled itself over engine type and neglected the deaths it has caused is political not a misuse of science..

All I ask you to do is fact check your science and while your at it do you now understand why diesel is more expensive in the US then Petrol.

Please check the facts about the the new refrigerants..

And please also understand that achieving a sustainable planet should be everyone's goal and dont not let cloud your judgement when governments like canada exploit these initiatives .. ie biomass fuels, which when shipped to the UK produce a higher carbon footprint then burning coal
 
LOL. Guilt can be apportioned everywhere. The point is your finger pointing does nothing to move the situation forward and get all movements to coalesce into a single, useful initiative.

 
80deg16minW - 15/11/2017 19:40

LOL. Guilt can be apportioned everywhere. The point is your finger pointing does nothing to move the situation forward and get all movements to coalesce into a single, useful initiative.
Click to expand...

yes it can
but the facts remain, that this has turned from a well intentioned initiative to political football, where gloom and doom, seem to out sway other events..

please read this

https://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/69623/BBC-shunned-me-for-denying-climate-change
 
Bellamy must be looking at different figures to everyone else. Since 1880 the global temp has increased by 1 degree C . It's a global average. Some areas are experiencing much higher increases.

The temps are in line with the Pilocene age of 2 to 5 million years ago . 15 of 16 years since 2001 have seen hotter temps than previous.

I guess some figures from areas as opposed to global may help.

2 degrees globally will cause catastrophe and Bellamy could be right , maybe there is nothing we can do, it's cyclical ? But doing nothing or not trying hard enough to restrict the CO2 is potentially creating an impossible environment for our future populations be it human or anything else.

Do we want temps to increase anymore ? No. So what can we do about it ?
 
The end of the Arctic has been predicted as early as 2030.

As the ice mass melts the sun is not reflected back meaning the deep oceans absorb the heat and warm up. This causes ice plankton loss and therefore the food chain. Many species will be lost.

I dread to think of the knock on effects.
 
Nick Real Deal - 19/12/2017 08:42

The end of the Arctic has been predicted as early as 2030.

As the ice mass melts the sun is not reflected back meaning the deep oceans absorb the heat and warm up. This causes ice plankton loss and therefore the food chain. Many species will be lost.

I dread to think of the knock on effects.
Click to expand...

I am sure if the price is right Danny boy will buy the plankton... To go with what he has bought before!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.