Quantcast

Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?

Samantha 2012/05/23 16:03:09
Remember how Wile E. Coyote, in his obsessive pursuit of the Road Runner, would fall off a cliff? The hapless predator ran straight out off the edge, stopped in midair as only an animated character could, looked beneath him in an eye-popping moment of truth, and plummeted straight down into a puff of dust. Splat! Four decades ago, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer model called World3 warned of such a possible course for human civilization in the 21st century. In Limits to Growth, a bitterly disputed 1972 book that explicated these findings, researchers argued that the global industrial system has so much inertia that it cannot readily correct course in response to signals of planetary stress. But unless economic growth skidded to a halt before reaching the edge, they warned, society was headed for overshoot—and a splat that could kill billions.

Don't look now but we are running in midair, a new book asserts. In 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (Chelsea Green Publishing), Jorgen Randers of the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, and one of the original World3 modelers, argues that the second half of the 21st century will bring us near apocalypse in the form of severe global warming. Dennis Meadows, professor emeritus of systems policy at the University of New Hampshire who headed the original M.I.T. team and revisited World3 in 1994 and 2004, has an even darker view. The 1970s program had yielded a variety of scenarios, in some of which humanity manages to control production and population to live within planetary limits (described as Limits to Growth). Meadows contends that the model's sustainable pathways are no longer within reach because humanity has failed to act accordingly.

Read More: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Stormy 2012/05/24 07:04:50
    Stormy
    We need to stop breeding like rabbits, live sustainably in a no growth global economy whilst investing heavily in R and D towards renewable forms of energy completely replacing carbon based energy, whilst at the same time dealing with extreme weather disasters, soil erosion of arable lands caused by drought and flood causing food shortages, which in turn will cause millions of climate refugees to seek out better lands in which to live, which could lead to increasing war as the race for fossil fuels and metals and minerals degrades more and more arable lands. . . etc etc etc and we can't even all agree on the problems we face. It's not looking good is it ?
  • Icarus 2012/05/23 21:29:42
    Icarus
    +2
    I hope they're wrong but I think they're right. I don't believe it's possible to sustainably support 7 billion people on this planet at *any* level of civilisation, let alone an American or European standard.
  • Grabitz 2012/05/23 16:33:04
    Grabitz
    +1
    No mother nature has a way of fixing itself in time and one way she does it is wiping out the ones who ruins the earth without discrimination .
  • Cuppajo 2012/05/23 16:32:17
    Cuppajo
    If we have, there really isn't any point in worrying about it, is there?
  • Reichstolz 2012/05/23 16:29:11
    Reichstolz
    I guess there is still stupid people being born every minute. Climate change believers are the only group that when making predictions contend that if they are wrong(as the all have been) the need for change is still eminent. What a complete farce.
  • Samantha Reichstolz 2012/05/23 17:32:10
    Samantha
    +1
    Is that the reason the U.S. military considers climate change a national security threat?
  • Reichstolz Samantha 2012/05/24 01:52:20
    Reichstolz
    The US military also has ROE's that don't allow their soldiers to use their weapons until someone is actually shot. Not a sound resource for judging any situation.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/05/23 21:31:18
    Icarus
    +2
    Climate scientists have been right quantitatively for over 30 years and qualitatively for well over 100 years. Global warming deniers have never been right at all.
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/05/24 01:53:34
    Reichstolz
    Nice try, they have yet to be right in any arena. Please look back at their grand hypothesis' in the mid 80's, New York should be underwater by now.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/05/24 06:22:07
    Icarus
    +1
    I think that little myth was debunked a long time ago. Hansen was already making accurate assessments of the course of global climate back in the 1980s -

    myth debunked hansen accurate assessments global climate 1980s
    Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Hansen et al 1981
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/doc...
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/05/24 13:48:36
    Reichstolz
    There is no link to atmospheric CO2 levels and climate. If that were the case we wouldn't have had an ice age.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/05/24 14:26:35
    Icarus
    +1
    During glaciations, CO2 declines from around 280 to 180ppm, and then during deglaciations it rises back to 280ppm again -

    glaciations co2 declines 280 180ppm deglaciations rises 280ppm

    So there is a very definite correlation between atmospheric CO2 and climate.
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/05/24 14:27:51
    Reichstolz
    There is no correlation, none that can be proven anyway.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/05/24 14:28:39
    Icarus
    +1
    You can see it above. CO2 and temperature rise and fall in almost perfect synchrony.
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/05/24 14:34:41
    Reichstolz
    We have no accurate temperature data that far back, it is another pretty graph to pacify those without any need for data.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/05/24 14:36:32
    Icarus
    +1
    The data comes from ice cores which now go back about 800,000 years. See the credit below the graph.
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/05/24 14:45:47
    Reichstolz
    Yes and when you look at their study it is estimation and extrapolation. Which unfortunately is not science.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/05/24 15:16:30
    Icarus
    +1
    Well no, they are measurements, which is science.
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/05/24 15:17:54
    Reichstolz
    They are comparative extrapolations, which are conjecture not science.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/05/24 15:24:35
    Icarus
    +1
    No, they are measurements of the ratio of stable isotopes of oxygen, which varies with temperature.
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/05/24 15:27:51
    Reichstolz
    There ratios are estimation, with no repeatability. There are many in even the believer category that do not agree with the interpretations of the ice core guesses.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/05/24 15:44:35
    Icarus
    +1
    Not exactly. The ratios are measured. Converting that to temperature is the tricky bit.
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/05/24 15:46:54
    Reichstolz
    +1
    That is the point, there is nothing "tricky" about science it is either repeatable with the same equation or not, which it has been proven that the manipulation and extrapolation is not repeatable, it is conjecture on behalf of those with the conclusion decided prior to assessing the data.
  • JoeBtfsplk Reichstolz 2012/07/05 10:16:25
    JoeBtfsplk
    You won!
  • Reichstolz JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/05 13:26:05
    Reichstolz
    OK.
  • JoeBtfsplk Icarus 2012/07/05 10:16:11
    JoeBtfsplk
    You lost that one!
  • Icarus JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/05 10:49:10
    Icarus
    +2
    Reichstolz simply rejects any and all evidence that doesn't show what he wants to believe. That may make him happy but it's not exactly 'winning'.
  • JoeBtfsplk Icarus 2012/07/05 10:51:42
    JoeBtfsplk
    I believe he clearly stated that scientific proof is not available.

    Opinions? Yes they are plentiful.

    Obviously, you have yours.


    There's too much money involved in carbon tax - the rich will get richer.

    You think some scientists are on the take?


    I do.
  • Icarus JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/05 10:55:59
    Icarus
    +1
    Some scientists are definitely on the take. For example, so-called 'skeptic' scientist Willie Soon admitted getting $1 million from fossil fuel industry funding.
  • JoeBtfsplk Icarus 2012/07/05 11:11:44
    JoeBtfsplk
    Both sides do it.

    Should make anyone skeptical!
  • Icarus JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/05 13:09:26
    Icarus
    Think about it though: On the so-called-skeptic side you have a rag-tag bunch of known frauds who already have form for denial of other scientific issues (e.g. smoking-induced cancer). They're basically just deniers-for-hire. On the other side you have virtually the entire scientific community of the planet, including every country's national scientific organisation and many other scientific organisations, all declaring that they are persuaded by the evidence for AGW. The idea that these vast numbers of scientists are all simply lying for money is clearly absurd. It's conspiracy theory nonsense gone mad. I honestly don't think you're stupid enough to believe in such a vast global conspiracy.

    I agree about the carbon tax though - that's mainly a strategy for business to appear 'green', protect their profits and not actually do anything significant to minimise global warming.
  • Reichstolz Icarus 2012/07/05 13:25:24
    Reichstolz
    That is the point you cannot prove that whatever climate events are taking place that man has influenced them in any way. Man has been on this planet for such a short time there is no proof that we have helped or hindered the planet in anyway. We are but a pimple on this earth.
  • Icarus Reichstolz 2012/07/05 15:01:40
    Icarus
    What evidence would you accept?
  • Samantha Icarus 2012/07/05 16:53:13
    Samantha
    +1
    None because conservatives reject facts, science and reason.
  • Samantha JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/05 13:34:55
    Samantha
    There widespread scientific consensus for climate change; however, conservatives reject science, facts and reason.
  • JoeBtfsplk Samantha 2012/07/05 13:36:31
    JoeBtfsplk
    Right you are genius! - the climate has been changing since day one! Whenever that was?
  • Samantha JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/05 13:37:56
    Samantha
    Conservatives reject science, facts and reason.
  • JoeBtfsplk Samantha 2012/07/05 14:50:42
    JoeBtfsplk
    Generalizations are always true!

    (in your world)
  • Samantha JoeBtfsplk 2012/07/05 16:53:40
    Samantha
    It's not a generalization; it's a fact. Read Chris Mooney's book for countless examples.
  • JoeBtfsplk Samantha 2012/07/05 16:55:18
    JoeBtfsplk
    Are there permanent rainbows and herds of unicorns in your world?

News & Politics

2013/05/20 12:31:19

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals