Apparently we are 2 minutes to midnight, but no one seems to be concerned.

https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement/

Shouldn't we all be frantically trying to alleviate the pressure that is coming from many angles and many different scientific communities? — Lif3r

Sure.

Shouldn't this be a front page article with references to hard data?

Yes, and maybe pigs should fly.

I saw a 20 second clip on the news a few weeks ago that we are supposed to start witnessing severe damage from global warming in 12 years.

We're already witnessing it. It's already happening, apparent, and taking many lives. Unnaturally-humungous hurricanes, wildfires on unprecedented scale across this country, with unprecedented death-toll, for example.

It isn't that it isn't already here. It's just that the worst of it remains to arrive, and it will only get worse.

And furthermore, if it is true, what the duck are we gonna do?

Become extinct?

Michael Ossipoff

Nuclear weapons, climate change, species extinction, pollution of the seas... when you play Russian roulette with several guns at once, sooner or later you're going to get a bullet in the head.

Never mind. When we're gone, the few remaining animals will probably be a lot happier.

Well I guess it was a decent run everybody. Thanks for playing.

What will happen in 12 years time? No one knows, same for any time in the future. We are careering headlong into the unknown.

Bear in mind that the most comforting time on the Doomsday Clock was 17 minutes before midnight in 1991--when the Soviet Union collapsed. Were we any safer from nuclear weapons that year than in any other? Not really.

If you are a pessimist, then one is likely to think that we are screwed -- now or sometime in the next 20, 30, 50, or 100 years. There are any number of threats--some natural, some manmade, some a combination. We could reduce or even eliminate some of these threats, but doing so requires that pigs fly. We could get rid of nuclear weapons. That's very, very unlikely. We could suddenly and sharply (like, really slam the brakes on) reduce carbon emissions, but that would in itself be a crisis for many people. High carbon emissions are woven into the world economy. Those with the most to lose (their lives) have little individual power, and those who would only lose wealth are very powerful.

How the details will work out of us all being screwed remains to be seen. It will, certainly, be VERY INTERESTING.

So yeah probably, but we don't know exactly how it's gonna play out.
I'm just thinking like... Should I build a bunker or what?

You guys are the most logical people I know. How do I survive if shtf?

When (not if) the shit hits the fan, a bunker will be of little use. Unless you could build a bunker like the Chad Mitchel Trio sang about in the 1960s...

Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
Worthy of Kubla Kahn's Xanadu dome
Plushy and swanky with posh hanky-panky
That affluent yankees can really call home

Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
A push-button palace, fluorescent repose
Electric devices for facing a crisis
With frozen fruit ices and cinema shows

Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
Of chromium kitchens and rubber tile dorms
With waterproof portals to echo the chortles
Of weatherproof mortals in hydrogen storms

Yes, the sun is killing us, right now. UV rays can cause skin cancers, some deadly. The majority of UV radiation from the sun, which reaches the earth, is absorbed into the atmosphere by ozone. However, certain synthetic chemicals have caused ozone depletion and what is called the "ozone hole". An international treaty (The Montreal Protocol) has been put into effect to prevent further ozone depletion. But the chemicals are there, the damage is done, and recovery is slow.

The HIPERION report of 2008 indicates that the increase of solar UV at the earth's surface has pushed surface measurements to dangerous levels in equatorial regions: http://exa.ec/HIPERION-Report_files/The-HIPERION-Report.pdf

The biggest global threats to the environment are the eco-warriors. The biggest global threats to peace are the pacifists.

Those who fervently and arduously fight against one perceived flaw do no more than fan the flames they say they’re trying to put out. They feel righteous as they burn and all around them burns. They scream out with hate at everyone else’s stupidity while they flay them alive.

My point being that the idea of a singular solution to a global problem is almost ceratinly going to antagonise the problem due to the ease of viewing the problem as simplistic and one-dimensional.

The fervent are not great at expressing, or adherring to, rational analysis of any given problem. They just scream and attach to the easiest and simpliest possible target (often due to greed/jealousy.)

Humans are doing well enough. The fact that we’re concerned with multiple problems means we’re not as blind to then as we were several centuries ago - and the “environment” has always been a challenge for us because it is us.

Not sure I have heard of The Bulletin. Does it quack?

Homicidal sun
won't you come
And wash away the humans.

That site looks pretty cranky.

So I guess we just accept that if the Earth becomes 3-4° warmer we will start seeing incredible surges of extreme weather that will kill many people and ecosystems and force mass migration of humans from refuge to refuge clawing tooth and nail with one another for survival?
And then at 5° we all just literally die?

Or I mean is that fake news?

I have heard of billionares building bunkers, but I am not sure how well that works for climate change to be honest. It could survive massive Nuclear fallout, but I don't see how someone could survive extreme heat unless they had some kond of revolutionary air conditioning on their own power source.
So yeah I guess that may be possible, but you would need some engineering that I'm not quite sure I am qualified to do without a huge wad of cash to appoint others.

In other words we're ducked.
I think.

The problem is we have incompatible beliefs and desires, some believe that climate change is man-made some don't, some believe it is urgent to do something about it some don't, some care about the future of the planet while some only care about the extent of their life and if they can have a good life by destroying the environment they feel good about doing so.

We don't all agree on what makes the climate change and to what extent, so we don't all agree on the severity of the problem nor on whether there is a problem at all, so a bunch of people don't believe there is a problem and a bunch believe that if there is a problem we will find out how to solve it in the future. Now what if it really is an urgent problem and we are driving ourselves into doom if we don't do anything drastic about it now? The problem then is, how can we all agree on whether it is an urgent problem that we ought to all tackle together now?

Many different models give many different predictions about future temperature rises, the climate of the planet is complex and we don't understand it that well, many claim to understand it but many of them disagree with each other, so we'll probably never agree on how severely the climate is going to warm in the near future. But there are some more direct observations that we can mostly all agree on, such as the extent and rate of deforestation throughout the world, the high amount of plastic in the oceans, the air pollution in cities, which all have a negative impact on our species and other species, and that's something we could change more easily.

But there are various forces at play who aren't motivated by living in harmony with other species in a sustainable ecosystem but by being "better than", the USA want to be better than China, China want to be better than the USA, various entities fear each other and will do anything to come out on top and the environment is to them a second thought that will be dealt with later once they have won. And this state of living in fear of the other is responsible for a whole bunch of problems on top of the destruction of the environment. So how do you convince the world to stop their mindless destructive race to be on top, how do you convince them to stop fearing each other and realize that they would have a better life if they all cared about each other instead of fearing each other?

To me the root problem again is fear, we fear others and so we will do anything to protect ourselves from each other, even if that includes driving ourselves to extinction. Fear is a useful tool to survive in a dangerous environment where predators can kill us, but on a global scale where we thrive fear is our worst enemy, natural selection could weed out those who can't stop fighting with each other but with modern technology they could kill us all before that. If we want to grow up as a species we need to overcome that fear, and if we don't then we will give up our seat to other species that better deserve it.

And then at 5° we all just literally die? — Lif3r

No. We're not going to die out. Study climate science. Avoid sensational crap.

Interesting perspective. Another factor is how societies have gotten used to a standard of living which is largely unsustainable and superfluous.

I'd say the vast majority of our material wealth is dead weight and does little to nothing to make us happy, in fact an argument could be made that it makes us less happy. Yet we cling onto it for dear life, no matter the sacrifices that must be made in order to provide it to us.

I'm not sure how I would define this situation.

The problem is we have incompatible beliefs and desires... — leo

The problem then is, how can we all agree on whether it is an urgent problem that we ought to all tackle together now? — leo

To me the root problem again is fear... — leo

I think the problem is bigger than all these, but simpler too. Over the generations, but more especially in recent times (say since 1970), we humans have taken and consumed more and more - far too much more - from an ecosystem that can't bear the weight of our depredations. And because we won't give up the luxury we live in, or even slow down the trend toward even more luxury, we have a huge problem that we are too selfish to fix. And now it's too late....

The science is clear. Without rapid cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, climate change will have increasingly destructive and irreversible impacts on life on Earth. The window of opportunity for action is almost closed. Link to entire article. — WMO

I would define it as having false beliefs about what we need to be happy. On a basic level material wealth allows us to survive more easily, so that makes us feel good, then we come to associate material wealth with feeling good and come to believe that more material wealth means more of that feeling good, more happiness, but that's a false belief, many with immense material wealth have told that it didn't make them happy, some of them have killed themselves too.

We are on a quest to always have more than the neighbor, not seeing that this cannot go on forever because resources are not infinite. An afternoon with a friend filled with laughter and kindness and mutual understanding goes much further in bringing happiness than getting a better car or better house than the neighbor. Some who have next to zero material wealth are happy, yet we keep looking for happiness in endless consumerism.

We have found out how to build weapons of mass destruction, we have focused on protecting ourselves from one another and being more frightening than the other, but happiness is not found in fear, happiness is shared.

There is also the fact that in our society most of us are forced to do repetitive, soul-sucking tasks every day so as to get a piece of paper or numbers on a card that we must have to get food and shelter. To escape from this modern slavery we drown our minds into mindless entertainment so as to make the whole bearable. Consumerism is the painkiller to this torture. Barriers are put into place to prevent us from freeing ourselves of these shackles, if we attempted to grow our own food and build our own house on some land we would be faced with self-proclaimed masters of the land who would evict us with force, and then again we weren't educated to know how to do that. We are born slaves to this all. Then we find ourselves powerless and believe that we can't change the way things are, and so goes on the escapism into unsustainable consumerism.

We want another life but there are forces that push us into that life, and we let ourselves be overwhelmed, and we know and feel this isn't right so we protest, but our cries are drown into the deafening march of those who believe that they will find their salvation in gathering enough material wealth, if only they can climb the ladder high enough to be above the others, and so it goes on and on.

This whole society is predicated on fear, we have built an intricate system that makes life good to some and bearable to most, but fear makes it unsustainable and at some point that will all come crashing down.

Well said, I agree.

There is also the fact that in our society most of us are forced to do repetitive, soul-sucking tasks every day so as to get a piece of paper or numbers on a card that we must have to get food and shelter. To escape from this modern slavery we drown our minds into mindless entertainment so as to make the whole bearable. Consumerism is the painkiller to this torture. Barriers are put into place to prevent us from freeing ourselves of these shackles, if we attempted to grow our own food and build our own house on some land we would be faced with self-proclaimed masters of the land who would evict us with force, and then again we weren't educated to know how to do that. We are born slaves to this all. Then we find ourselves powerless and believe that we can't change the way things are, and so goes on the escapism into unsustainable consumerism. — leo

Lately I've been contemplating the barriers you describe. I'm not certain what part of them is real and what part of them is a product of the minimal standard of living we are prepared to accept. If we accept that all we need is food and warmth in winter, what barriers remain standing?

The whole system is the barrier. You are not free to go somewhere and build your house and grow your food there, someone will come and say "this land is mine" or "this land belongs to such or such organization and you have no right to be there" then call the cops on you if you don't want to move somewhere else where you will be faced with the same problem again. To gain the freedom of living anywhere, you first have to be a slave of the system for a given number of years until you manage to accumulate enough pieces of paper or numbers on an account, then give all those in exchange for having the freedom to live somewhere. And then your whole life you were never taught about building your own house or growing your own food or living in self-sustenance, you were taught to function as a part of the system which involves being a cog in a machine and not a self-sustaining individual, so that's another barrier which you have to overcome, and by that time it feels easier to remain part of the system.

We are forced to take part in that unsustainable machine, then those who come out on top with a lot of properties and numbers in their account want to keep what they have worked so hard to gain, they don't give that up or share that easily, so the others have to spend more and more effort to have a given standard of living, spend more and more resources, which takes its toll on the environment.

We could have food and warmth and comfort with a much lesser impact on the environment if we helped each other and cared about each other, and if we were taught and allowed to sustain ourselves to a greater extent, rather than taking part in this more and more straining and destructive rat race, but we can't do that without changing the whole system, laws, education, which requires to stop fearing each other and stop seeing the other as the enemy. We live as if our countries were at war with one another, we compete and have to be the best, spending so much effort and resources in the process, and meanwhile we and the environment suffer.

So let's assume climate change and global warming are just a big scam for people to make money off of the word, that there is no threat, and that it is all hubbub.
Wouldn't it still be more efficient in terms of energy consumption and land preservation to switch to a more sustainable energy source than sucking huge quantities of the earth out of the ground, refining it in a process that creates non consumable waste, and dissipating it into thin air?

It's very possible man-made global warming is an urgent existential threat, but even if it isn't yes we could do much much better to preserve the environment and our future, but then again many people don't want to sacrifice economic growth for the environment, because they want to be better than, they want to be competitive, they want to have the upper hand, they want to have something others need, to feel in control, to feel more safe, because they fear others, and so they sacrifice the environment for economic growth, for power over others.

You guys are the most logical people I know. — Lif3r

And then at 5° we all just literally die? — Lif3r

First of all, you definitely will die whether the climate warms up or not. You, along with everybody else. Nobody gets out of here alive. Second, If you live a normal life span, and if you are at least 25 years old, you have already lived 25% to 33% of your longest likely lifespan.

If you can choose where to live out your remaining 50 to 70 years of life, chose to live either in southern Canada or the northern tier of states where there will still be cold weather in the winter. Avoid the southern states where it will be just too fucking hot. Big cities tend to be heat islands, which is good in the winter, bad in the summer. A smaller sized city of 100,000 population would be good. Duluth, Sheboygan, Green Bay, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, upstate New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts (not Boston--heat island and extensive flooding from rising oceans), Maine. Get there early because you won't be the only one heading north.

If you can buy a small house, insulate heavily. A white reflective roof would be good. Plant a deciduous tree or two for shade, but leave room for a garden. Live simply. Enjoy life as much as possible.

With those "minor adjustments" to your life style, you'll make it as well as anybody will.

We probably won't reach a 5º C (not Fahrenheit) global temperature rise until late in this century. I'd expect chaos as life becomes unsustainable in the equatorial parts of the world and the areas immediately north and south of those regions. Flooding, fire, famine... It will be a very interesting time to be alive.

Wouldn't it still be more efficient in terms of energy consumption and land preservation to switch to a more sustainable energy source — Lif3r

Yes, definitely squared. But the unsustainable model is the foundation of the world economy. That doesn't mean that change is impossible, it means that change is extremely difficult because there are so many vested interests in the existing arrangement. It isn't just oil magnates. Its everybody who likes the convenience of driving, flying, plastics, and all that.

but then again many people don't want to sacrifice economic growth for the environment, because they want to be better than, they want to be competitive, they want to have the upper hand, they want to have something others need, to feel in control, to feel more safe, because they fear others, and so they sacrifice the environment for economic growth, for power over others. — leo

Exactly.

We are forced to take part in that unsustainable machine, then those who come out on top with a lot of properties and numbers in their account want to keep what they have worked so hard to gain, they don't give that up or share that easily, so the others have to spend more and more effort to have a given standard of living, spend more and more resources, which takes its toll on the environment. — leo

Exactly.

So some of us can agree that a shift would help the environment, but at the cost of interfering with economics that don't want to budge, and that there is a chance that in our lifetime or the lifetime after us we may experience fallout as a result.
And so the smart thing to do would be to prepare similarly to how Crank mentioned on the chance that there is at least a possibility.

And so the smart thing to do would be to prepare similarly to how Crank mentioned on the chance that there is at least a possibility. — Lif3r

I think an even smarter thing to do would be to try to change things rather than believing we can't put down economics from its pedestal, it's not easy and that would be a grand paradigm shift, but a much needed one, and it's possible, if we have been able to wake up about this state of affairs then potentially others can too. Change is brought about by a desire for change, and by believing that we can change things. And then after a lot of perseverance we eventually succeed. First they ignore you, ...

Those of us who are not concerned about climate change simply believe that the ants, termites, and humans on the Earth cannot stop climate change one way or the other.

Those of you who are concerned about climate change simply believe in the modern mythology that they can.

If humans were not the top predator on the Earth then next in line would be the other apex predators like orca's, elephants, bears, lions, tigers, wolves, and so forth. That is not such a bad Earth -- probably a better one. But for some reason the God Of Philosophy has put humans in charge. However I do not believe we humans can change climate change. It seems to have been changing about every 10 thousand years on its own without human intervention in the past.