It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rubbish: Earth may be too hot for humans by 2300

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Earth may be too hot for humans by 2300


www.cosmosmagazine.com/news

SYDNEY: Climate change could make much of the world too hot for human habitation within just three centuries, scientists said.

Scientists from Australia's University of New South Wales and Purdue University in the U.S. found that rising temperatures in some places could mean humans would be unable to adapt or survive.

"It would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7°C, calling the habitability of some regions into question," the researchers wrote in a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Seriously? Come on... Like someone on the linked news story commented: How can they accurately predict THREE HUNDRED years in the future, when they can barely predict the next 7 days of weather? I understand that there are different variables involved when looking a short term weather pattern (7 days) and a long term weather pattern (several years), but this is just ridiculous. Besides, we all know that global warming was a scam, so they just changed the name to "Climate Change", thinking we wouldn't notice it's the same scam with a different title.

Furthermore, don't they know that the earth goes through NATURAL CYCLES of heating and cooling??? We are at the very PEAK of the warm period, getting ready to rapidly decline into another glacial period reminiscent of what we call the Ice Age.



See?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
This is total bull, especially as mankind is playing with the weather all the time in experiments, sooner or later we will know exactly how the system works and be able to change the weather in real terms ourselves. I doubt seriously it will take those 300 years to do so, as usa and russia and china are all doing things.

There is no such thing as manmade global warming, and these stories are just puke rubbish.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Ah the climate game again. It almost seems like these hacks are playing the game "SimCity" and creating these wild scenarios to keep everyone on edge. I wonder if these same climate scientists can come up with reasons why the OTHER PLANETARY bodies in our solar system are also experiencing global warming?


[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire
Seriously? Come on... Like someone on the linked news story commented: How can they accurately predict THREE HUNDRED years in the future, when they can barely predict the next 7 days of weather?


They are not predicting the weather!


Why they are saying is simply that if (for whatever reason) the earth warmed by x degrees then, because of the humidity levels associated with the higher temperatures in some parts of the world, modern humans would struggle to cope with the climate in those parts of the world - mainly around the tropics and desert regions.

What's wrong with that?

It's fact.

Whether or not the world will warm by that amount, for whatever reason,is a different matter. And many would argue that at present there is no serious reason to suppose it will.


And it's exactly no different to saying that if a large asteroid hits the earth, or if Yellowstone erupts, the resulting 'nuclear' winter will make many parts of the earth uninhabitable to humans. Is it?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
To me it seems like the old ends justifies the means theory.
It's mostly lies and exaggerations but if it makes people actually want to care about the environment then the ends justifies the means.
I disagree with the tactics.


In the past anyone who gave a sh** about the Environment was a wacco, greenie, weirdo.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to minimize the harm we commit on the planet.But no one cared, no one wanted to be a weirdo greenie hippie freak.
so to get normal people to give a crap they predict these ludicrous extreme scenarios that create a hysteria in us.

all that said i do find it a bit SAD that's that's what it came to to get people to give a S*** about the earth, propaganda, hysteria.

I Don't want to be as harmful as i possibly can to the earth but i don't appreciate the deception perpetuated by Government, media etc.

ONE THING TO ADD the CSIRO (a supposedly independent scientific research organisation.) are not allowed to release results of studies to the public without pre approval from the government, that is SO wrong.I cannot begin to express how wrong.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by OrphenFire
Seriously? Come on... Like someone on the linked news story commented: How can they accurately predict THREE HUNDRED years in the future, when they can barely predict the next 7 days of weather?


They are not predicting the weather!


Why they are saying is simply that if (for whatever reason) the earth warmed by x degrees then, because of the humidity levels associated with the higher temperatures in some parts of the world, modern humans would struggle to cope with the climate in those parts of the world - mainly around the tropics and desert regions.

What's wrong with that?

It's fact.

Whether or not the world will warm by that amount, for whatever reason,is a different matter. And many would argue that at present there is no serious reason to suppose it will.


And it's exactly no different to saying that if a large asteroid hits the earth, or if Yellowstone erupts, the resulting 'nuclear' winter will make many parts of the earth uninhabitable to humans. Is it?


If this is the case, why don't the climatologists come out with a little blurb saying that a few degrees increase in the average temperature would save billions of dollars a year in energy(heating) costs and would also cut back tremendously on the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere?

Simple answer,
It doesn't suit their political agenda.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by OrphenFire
Seriously? Come on... Like someone on the linked news story commented: How can they accurately predict THREE HUNDRED years in the future, when they can barely predict the next 7 days of weather?


They are not predicting the weather!


Why they are saying is simply that if (for whatever reason) the earth warmed by x degrees then, because of the humidity levels associated with the higher temperatures in some parts of the world, modern humans would struggle to cope with the climate in those parts of the world - mainly around the tropics and desert regions.

What's wrong with that?

It's fact.

Whether or not the world will warm by that amount, for whatever reason,is a different matter. And many would argue that at present there is no serious reason to suppose it will.


And it's exactly no different to saying that if a large asteroid hits the earth, or if Yellowstone erupts, the resulting 'nuclear' winter will make many parts of the earth uninhabitable to humans. Is it?






But it's flogged as a prediction most of the time, not a speculation.
You make it sound like it' so logical and acceptable, but i find it to be hysterical because of the way it is worded.WERE it worded like your post it would be a reasonable, theoretical speculation.


It is no coincidence that they chose words like predict, unable to survive, instead of speculate, unknown if we can adapt to. ETC.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by mumma in pyjamas]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I agree with you Orphen Fire,

I think it's kind of interesting how humans survived the coldest colds of the ice ages and yet when things get hot, people are so worried. I'm not calling humans the greatest beings there are, but we are very adaptable and we have a way of surviving longer than we should. i.e. It's a fact that in the not so distant past, humans were so small in number that they would be considered endangered and now in today's world there are 6 billion of us. I think it's funny how people assume we can destroy our planet and how we think our planet can destroy us.. If humanity wishes to keep on, it finds a way to do so. And the Earth, while it can be effected or hurt, is seemingly indestructible from the inside, you can do whatever you want, but the Earth will just go with the flow and eventually recover.

It's important to treat the earth well not because we can destroy it or make things bad for ourselves, but because we are fortunate to live here, look out there, what other planets do you see like the Earth? We have a gem and ergo we should keep it in good condition and respect it instead of assuming that becase we are here, we can do anything we want..

The Protector



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by OrphenFire
Seriously? Come on... Like someone on the linked news story commented: How can they accurately predict THREE HUNDRED years in the future, when they can barely predict the next 7 days of weather?


They are not predicting the weather!


Why they are saying is simply that if (for whatever reason) the earth warmed by x degrees then, because of the humidity levels associated with the higher temperatures in some parts of the world, modern humans would struggle to cope with the climate in those parts of the world - mainly around the tropics and desert regions.

What's wrong with that?

It's fact.

Whether or not the world will warm by that amount, for whatever reason,is a different matter. And many would argue that at present there is no serious reason to suppose it will.


And it's exactly no different to saying that if a large asteroid hits the earth, or if Yellowstone erupts, the resulting 'nuclear' winter will make many parts of the earth uninhabitable to humans. Is it?




They aren't just saying that "If the world heats up by 7 Celsius, humans would have a hard time coping." Did you read the article? They are saying:


Serious risk by 2030

"With 11-12°C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed."

Researcher Professor Steven Sherwood said there was no chance of the Earth heating up by 7°C this century, but there was a serious risk that the continued burning of fossil fuels could create the problem by 2300.

"There's something like a 50/50 chance of that over the long term," he said.


He is saying there is only a 50/50 hit or miss chance that we are going to have uninhabitable regions on our planet in 300 years. And he is basing it on burning of fossil fuels, not natural heating cycles or even solar causes.

They aren't insinuating that a few parts of the globe would be just a little hot. They are insinuating the inability to even survive in these regions, and calling a 50/50 chance. I cannot agree with that.

ETA:
I agree we need to treat our planet much better. HOWEVER, many people have the misunderstanding that it is us who will destroy our planet. No, it is the the planet that will destroy us. Human beings are powerful, but not more so than this giant, wonderful, watery rock in space that has survived much worse treatment than the presence of humans. Planet Earth will survive. Humans? Not so much...

[edit on 5/11/2010 by OrphenFire]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I am saying that the world would of figured out by then how to control the weather as close as you can get. I would suspect an awful lot has already been known with electromagnetic weapons, but they must be doing lots of testing.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrphenFire
He is saying there is only a 50/50 hit or miss chance that we are going to have uninhabitable regions on our planet in 300 years. And he is basing it on burning of fossil fuels, not natural heating cycles or even solar causes.


This is a media story - not the actual paper.

As always, the media quote out of context in order to sensationalise the story.

You - and all ATS member - ought to know better!


Nonetheless, if warming from AGW occurs as some predict, and if it is at the upper end of predictions, then it will mean that some parts of the planet may in future become unpleasant for human habitation (just as some places are today).

However, it probably won't happen.


[edit on 11-5-2010 by Essan]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join