Page 1 of 21

Scientists issue 'warning to humanity'

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:01 am
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp
The maple syrup sauce
More than 15,000 scientists around the world have issued a global warning: there needs to be change in order to save Earth.

It comes 25 years after the first notice in 1992 when a mere 1,500 scientists issued a similar warning.

This new cautioning — which gained popularity on Twitter with #ScientistsWarningToHumanity — garnered more than 15,000 signatures.

Climate change likely helped fuel Harvey's strength
2017 set to be among top 3 hottest years, UN weather agency says
William Ripple of Oregon State University's College of Forestry, who started the campaign, said that he came across the 1992 warning last February, and noticed that this year happened to mark the 25th anniversary.

Together with his graduate student, Christopher Wolf, he decided to revisit the concerns raised then, and collect global data for different variables to show trends over the past 25 years.

Ripple found:

A decline in freshwater availability.
Unsustainable marine fisheries.
Ocean dead zones.
Forest losses.
Dwindling biodiversity.
Climate change.
Population growth.
There was one positive outcome, however: a rapid decline in ozone depletion.

"The trends are alarming, and they speak for themselves," Ripple said, though he notes the improvement in the ozone hole illustrates that humanity can make change when needed.

After writing the viewpoint article, which was accepted for publication in the journal BioScience, he decided to see if he could once again collect signatures.

"I'd never tried that before, so in July I sent [the article] to 40 colleagues of mine, and by the next day, 600 scientists had signed it," he told CBC News.

Within two days, there were 1,200 signatures. Of the more than 15,364 signatures to date, 527 are from Canada, ranking eighth among 184 countries.

The goal of the paper is to raise awareness about the fragile state of the planet.

"The scientists around the world are very concerned about the state of the world, the environmental situation and climate change," Ripple said. "So this allows them to have a collective voice."

Growing middle class and its carbon footprint

"Since 1992, carbon emissions have increased 62 per cent," Ripple said. "And the global average temperature change has paralleled that. Also since 1992, we have two billion more people on Earth, which is a 35 per cent increase."

However, he notes that there has been a rapid decline in fertility rates, but said that likely won't show up in the data until later.

One of the chief concerns is population growth, but not in terms of numbers. Instead, the focus is on our ecological footprint with an increase in consumerism that puts a toll on the environment.

"What is happening is that the global middle class is growing, and it's growing extremely rapidly," said co-author Eileen Crist, a professor at Virginia Tech's Department of Science and Technology in Society.

That comes from the very positive outcome of getting people out of poverty. But there's a catch.

"But what sometimes people miss … they miss what's happening in the middle," Crist said. "Which from an ecological perspective of the planet is the most significant event: the rapid rise of the global middle class, which is now more than three billion people in the world and it's expected, by 2050 or so, to rise to five billion people."

And it's the middle class where people begin to increase their carbon footprint: they buy appliances and cars, eat more meat and travel.

'The chief concern isn't really the human numbers. It's the impact we have."
- Eileen Crist, professor at Virginia Tech
One of the potential solutions is to stabilize the population. If we reduce family size, consumption patterns don't rise as much. And that can be done by empowering girls and women, providing sexual education and education on family planning.

"The chief concern isn't really the human numbers as such. It's the impact we have," Crist said.

'In the throes of a mass extinction event'

There is rising evidence that Earth has entered the sixth mass extinction event, brought on by humans.

"We are in the throes of a mass extinction event that is anthropogenic," Crist said. "This is not something we can fix. If we lose 50 to 75 per cent of the species on the planet in this century — which is what scientists are telling us what will occur if we continue to operate as business-as-usual — if this happens, this can not be fixed."

When asked whether she's optimistic that the new petition will have an effect on changes, Crist said that she doesn't think of it that way. Taking care of the planet is akin to taking care of one's family.

"We take care of our families: our children and our spouses and our parents. When you take care of your family, you don't do it because you're optimistic or pessimistic … it's because that's what you do.

"Our mandate is that we take care of Earth and earthlings and human beings because we're all family."




Well, this warning is indeed important and I think we should listen to it.

However, knowing Trump, he will ignore it and keep on marching with "Clean" coal power.

And with him ignoring it, most countries will sadly ignore it.

But, what do you think NSG?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:09 am
by Eisen Wolf Reich
Personally I think that a lot of solar and renewable energy in its current state isn't enough to suffice with our growing power needs. We should go nuclear, a properly built and maintained reactor is almost full-proof.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:11 am
by Reutoa
Eisen Wolf Reich wrote:Personally I think that a lot of solar and renewable energy in its current state isn't enough to suffice with our growing power needs. We should go nuclear, a properly built and maintained reactor is almost full-proof.

If only we had used Nuclear Energy like in the Fallout universe. i want a fecking Codsworth

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:11 am
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp
Eisen Wolf Reich wrote:Personally I think that a lot of solar and renewable energy in its current state isn't enough to suffice with our growing power needs. We should go nuclear, a properly built and maintained reactor is almost full-proof.


I'd go one step past that, more investment in fusion should be our goal.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:14 am
by Ostroeuropa
I agree it's a WW2 level threat and should be treated as such.
Our society needs to change its behavior radically until the threat is dealt with, and those who oppose it are essentially traitors to the species.

Provided it were effective or alternatives didn't work, conscripting the populace to work on producing solar panels, windfarms, hydroplants and such, and replacing infrastructure with green alternatives for the duration of the threat is something i'd support. We might need to bring back something akin to the work placement schemes the governments of the west ran during WW2, directing people to necessary sectors.

Nations that lie outside an allied commitment to tackle the problem should be regarded as hostile, and rogue nations. They should be blockaded both as a deterrent to their behavior, and to reduce the impact their economies have on the environment through directly shrinking their economy.

Eventually, these kind of measures will become necessary, and might be already.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:15 am
by Rostavykhan
Eisen Wolf Reich wrote:Personally I think that a lot of solar and renewable energy in its current state isn't enough to suffice with our growing power needs. We should go nuclear, a properly built and maintained reactor is almost full-proof.


Nuclear is good. A greater push for fusion would be best.

Though tighter environmental regulations and initiatives to encourage citizens to install solar appliances and other types of renewable energy would also be a step in the right direction.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:19 am
by Samnoreg
The question is can capital accumulation be interrupted adequately in order to move in the direction we need to? As long as fossil fuel holds ascendent in the market and it is profitable to continue to drill for and burn oil and the like, we're not going to see much progress.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:46 am
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp
Samnoreg wrote:The question is can capital accumulation be interrupted adequately in order to move in the direction we need to? As long as fossil fuel holds ascendent in the market and it is profitable to continue to drill for and burn oil and the like, we're not going to see much progress.

Hence, why need a massive push for electric cars.
(Why do you post in small text?)

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:50 am
by Diopolis
Personally I think that, absent civilizational collapse, we can't do anything to stop global warming at this point, so we should put our effort into bracing for impact.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:54 am
by Sovaal
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Eisen Wolf Reich wrote:Personally I think that a lot of solar and renewable energy in its current state isn't enough to suffice with our growing power needs. We should go nuclear, a properly built and maintained reactor is almost full-proof.


I'd go one step past that, more investment in fusion should be our goal.

This. "Green" renewables, while nice and do have their places, cannot realistically compete with fossil fuels like nuclear can.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:55 am
by The Eternal Aulus
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Eisen Wolf Reich wrote:Personally I think that a lot of solar and renewable energy in its current state isn't enough to suffice with our growing power needs. We should go nuclear, a properly built and maintained reactor is almost full-proof.


I'd go one step past that, more investment in fusion should be our goal.

Fusion is a meme. Just go regular nuclear. The waste product is usually reusable.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:55 am
by The Alma Mater
Sovaal wrote:
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
I'd go one step past that, more investment in fusion should be our goal.

This. "Green" renewables, while nice and do have their places, cannot realistically compete with fossil fuels like nuclear can.


Nitpick: the sun is a pretty efficient nuclear fusion reactor.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:55 am
by Minoa
We need to be telling the right stories that can entice people to act on climate change: I remember a story from the Cass Business School that says ‘doomsday narratives’ about climate change won't work.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:56 am
by Colbert Super PAC
Who cares about what some scientists say? All they have is facts and evidence!

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:57 am
by Sovaal
The Alma Mater wrote:
Sovaal wrote:This. "Green" renewables, while nice and do have their places, cannot realistically compete with fossil fuels like nuclear can.


Nitpick: the sun is a pretty efficient nuclear fusion reactor.

Which we get by setting up solar panels which get a fraction of all energy it produces.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:57 am
by Sovaal
Colbert Super PAC wrote:Who cares about what some scientists say? All they have is facts and evidence!

Feels of fossil fuel corps) before reals bro.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:58 am
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp
The Eternal Aulus wrote:
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
I'd go one step past that, more investment in fusion should be our goal.

Fusion is a meme. Just go regular nuclear. The waste product is usually reusable.

It's more then a meme.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:59 am
by Multiversal Venn-Copard
Sovaal wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
Nitpick: the sun is a pretty efficient nuclear fusion reactor.

Which we get by setting up solar panels which get a fraction of all energy it produces.

Clearly the best way around that problem is to build a Dyson Sphere.

Jokes aside, 1360 W/m2 is nothing to scoff at; that's the sort of power density that we could trap huge amounts of with investment into space-based solar, if current efforts on the ground don't prove enough.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:59 am
by Freed Lymonia
Personally I think it's all hogwash

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:00 am
by Sovaal
Multiversal Venn-Copard wrote:
Sovaal wrote:Which we get by setting up solar panels which get a fraction of all energy it produces.

Clearly the best way around that problem is to build a Dyson Sphere.

Well we better get started if we're going to be Taffy's.

Jokes aside, 1360 W/m2 is nothing to scoff at; that's the sort of energy density that we could trap huge amounts of with investment into space-based solar, if current efforts don't prove enough.

I would also hope that by that time we have significant off world habitats as well.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:00 am
by Sovaal
Freed Lymonia wrote:Personally I think it's all hogwash

Which part/thing/whatever?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:01 am
by Rostavykhan
Freed Lymonia wrote:Personally I think it's all hogwash


It's obviously shamwow.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:03 am
by Freed Lymonia
Sovaal wrote:
Freed Lymonia wrote:Personally I think it's all hogwash

Which part/thing/whatever?

It being a problem we need to solve before we all die. We saw claims in the 60s and 70s we'd all be frozen now. Then they claim the ice caps would all be melted by now, you get it. I'm also unsure it's even an issue. With slightly higher global temperatures, we would have more square earth to farm, etc.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:04 am
by Gig em Aggies
I think it's a bunch of bullshit considering humanity isn't gonna stop doing what it does best. It's the same perception I had with Stephan hawkings "warning" we have to stop broadcasting signals into space because super ebul aliens will come and take us over.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:08 am
by Samnoreg
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Samnoreg wrote:The question is can capital accumulation be interrupted adequately in order to move in the direction we need to? As long as fossil fuel holds ascendent in the market and it is profitable to continue to drill for and burn oil and the like, we're not going to see much progress.

Hence, why need a massive push for electric cars.
(Why do you post in small text?)

Dunno really, I just like the look of it :ˆ)