Humans Have Only 100 Years Left

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes the science is real, Like a lot of theroy's where real a few years ago. The big bang was a given say 10 years ago not so much now plenty of competing theory's it's not taken as gospel now. So you already admit then if the system is not calculable then it could be 99% totally natural and only 1% input via man's actions ?

Am not arguing the article either it's Boll*x

We were steadily coming out of a slow ice age, when things speeded up. None of what we're seeing at the moment is natural for what things should be like if we didn't have a huge increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. The reasons for the current change IS that. There is no other pattern of change going on at the moment that would account for it.

There is too much to strip out via photosynthesis and with land use changes, such as deforestation, there is less to take in CO2 and also a lot more being released from the rotting vegetation and burning.

PopePalpatine

Samaris wrote: »

I do rather suspect I should include in any post I make in this thread that that article is absolute, dangerous and unhelpful bull**** and no, a microbiologist does not get to use that he is a scientist, even a top scientist, to give an earnest and scientific view on climate change any more than I get to comment on our potential for turning into salamanders as "a scientist".

I'd hazard a guess that the editorial board of the Daily Mail knew full well what they were doing by giving this person a platform, and it's not getting their readers to wake up to climate change, but rather "hey look at this smelly hippie!"

Boring username

ClovenHoof wrote: »

One of the world's top scientist has come out and stated that this is it folks.

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

You'd make a great Stasi man, do you know that?

Jjiipp79

Climate Change is a great pile of sh*t. Let the simples believe what they want tho.

Grayson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Both happen naturally, Now give us a number please if it's 1% there is not much we can do is there ? I have not said humans have not had an impact. I'm not the one shouting Doom... Because we say so without any repeatable data that matches models theory's.

Let me try this again.

97% of climate scientists believe

1) Climate change is occurring
2) It is getting worse

3) IT IS MAN MADE

Now, you can choose to ignore the last bit. The bit that 97% of scientists who are experts in this field all agree on. That just means that you're ignoring the most important part when it comes to what we should do about it.

Now, I'm not a scientist. I am someone with a science background and I am a mathematician. My knowledge of environmental biology ends at third year biology in college so I'm far from an expert. I might read a lot about this, but once again, I'm far from an expert. However I do think it takes ridiculous amount of hubris to discount the opinion of the entire scientific community.

Discounting the opinion of the scientific community with regard to climate change is up there with discounting the medical community with homoeopathy.

Samaris

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that the editorial board of the Daily Mail knew full well what they were doing by giving this person a platform, and it's not getting their readers to wake up to climate change, but rather "hey look at this smelly hippie!"

*sighs* I hate these people so much. It's like watching some guy bouncing up and down about tobacco making your head explode and the tobacco industry pissing themselves laughing as the people who have studied lung cancer and the correlation to smoking are holding their heads in their hands and going "Look, we have all this data. No it won't make your goddam head explode, but it's not good for you either."

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

We were steadily coming out of a slow ice age, when things speeded up. None of what we're seeing at the moment is natural for what things should be like if we didn't have a huge increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. The reasons for the current change IS that. There is no other pattern of change going on at the moment that would account for it.

There is too much to strip out via photosynthesis and with land use changes, such as deforestation, there is less to take in CO2 and also a lot more being released from the rotting vegetation and burning.

Well there are other factors that are never mentioned aint going to list them here as it will just spiral. Is odd that everyone has just nailed there flag to the mast on this just using CO2 as the only option. Even though it's been high before.

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Well there are other factors that are never mentioned aint going to list them here as it will just spiral. Is odd that everyone has just nailed there flag to the mast on this just using CO2 as the only option. Even though it's been high before.

Feel free to list them, and I'll engage.

S'true, it's not just CO2, but that's the biggest factor and it's the one that everyone tends to know, so it's the one I'm using. I did mention methane, another biggie, somewhere up the thread.

darkpagandeath

Grayson wrote: »

Let me try this again.

97% of climate scientists believe

1) Climate change is occurring
2) It is getting worse

3) IT IS MAN MADE

Now, you can choose to ignore the last bit. The bit that 97% of scientists who are experts in this field all agree on. That just means that you're ignoring the most important part when it comes to what we should do about it.

Now, I'm not a scientist. I am someone with a science background and I am a mathematician. My knowledge of environmental biology ends at third year biology in college so I'm far from an expert. I might read a lot about this, but once again, I'm far from an expert. However I do think it takes ridiculous amount of hubris to discount the opinion of the entire scientific community.

Discounting the opinion of the scientific community with regard to climate change is up there with discounting the medical community with homoeopathy.

CO2 was high before. Care to point out where I said man has not contributed ?

biko

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

Maybe the worst nazi post in the last week.

It's the people that want to jail the competition instead of meeting them in democratic debate I fear the most.

Jjiipp79

Grayson wrote: »

Let me try this again.

97% of climate scientists believe

1) Climate change is occurring
2) It is getting worse

3) IT IS MAN MADE

Now, you can choose to ignore the last bit. The bit that 97% of scientists who are experts in this field all agree on. That just means that you're ignoring the most important part when it comes to what we should do about it.

Now, I'm not a scientist. I am someone with a science background and I am a mathematician. My knowledge of environmental biology ends at third year biology in college so I'm far from an expert. I might read a lot about this, but once again, I'm far from an expert. However I do think it takes ridiculous amount of hubris to discount the opinion of the entire scientific community.

Discounting the opinion of the scientific community with regard to climate change is up there with discounting the medical community with homoeopathy.

No wrong!! So so wrong. Climate change is a natural thing and it's Global warming that is man made and fake as sh*t.


Read this if you can read!!

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Riskymove

I always welcome an opportunity to post this...it reflects the position/reaction on the issue perfectly for me

As it is AH I cannot include the pic - attached

Streetwalker

It is what it is. Nature has a way of deciding when our sell by date is and tbh we are well past it.

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

Feel free to list them, and I'll engage.

S'true, it's not just CO2, but that's the biggest factor and it's the one that everyone tends to know, so it's the one I'm using. I did mention methane, another biggie, somewhere up the thread.

Again I have not said man has not had an input into it, CO2 is compelling but a little to simple on it's own. We could find out down the line it's a perfect mix of mostly natural and man's input . And all we can do is adapt.

PopePalpatine

Jjiipp79 wrote: »

No wrong!! So so wrong. Climate change is a natural thing and it's Global warming that is man made and fake as sh*t.


Read this if you can read!!

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Wow, that's me convinced. Never mind 97% of climatologists - people who have spent years if not decades studying the world's climate - some guys writing for this tiny paper that doesn't even accept evolution have it all figured out!

Kalman

ClovenHoof wrote: »

One of the world's top scientist has come out and stated that this is it folks.

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

Huh, I wonder if Mr Auerbach and his cronies drive cars and use planes ?

These bold statements are designed to enhance one's career. Who's to say just when the world will end? [Now, is all the time you have.]

I

fr336

Steven81 wrote: »

Wont bother me, i will be well gone

Do you have kids.....?

Iwasfrozen

ClovenHoof wrote: »

One of the world's top scientist has come out and stated that this is it folks.

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

Why are you only sickened by Irish people who question climate change?

osarusan

So the world will only have lasted 7100 years in total.

Still, a good innings, I think we can all agree.

I, for one, feel blessed to have been educated at Liberty University.

NotYourYear20

Steven81 wrote: »

Wont bother me, i will be well gone

Throw in the fact that I don't have kids and I seriously couldn't give a crap also.....:pac:

fr336

It says a lot about a lot of humans who value this wonderful, complex life so little they won't even think about climate change...ya know...just incase... Of course we go to wars all the time on the pretense of caring oh so very much... Yawn

Wibbs

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Some say we were down to a few hundred people who lived on the tip of South Africa.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/last-few-early-humans-survived-in-eden-scientists-say/story-e6frf7mo-1225896808315

That's more than a bit dubious on so many levels. Daft "research" is daft and as all too often incredibly localised to where the researcher(s) happen to live/excavate.

Yes there was a genetic bottleneck in modern humans, but it was more along the lines of down to twenty thousand individuals and it happened much more recently around 50-60,ooo years ago IIRC Never mind that at the ages they're talking about they left out all the other humans that were around at the time. If Africa was so buggered because of the ice age and only the very southern tip was habitable, how come at the same time Neandertals were kings of the castle in Eurasia, a lot closer to the poles? Denisovans were rocking it further east and bands of Erectus were all over the place(inc Africa).

fr336

Some idiots said the earth wasn't flat once....bloody morons, how dare they interrupt my important thinking

Streetwalker

fr336 wrote: »

It says a lot about a lot of humans who value this wonderful, complex life so little they won't even think about climate change...ya know...just incase... Of course we go to wars all the time on the pretense of caring oh so very much... Yawn

Very few give a hoot about climate change that's the bottom line. You think all those people who rushed out and bought low emissions cars in 2008 for 150 quid a year tax did it because of what might happen in 100 years?? Look at the half assed efforts from the world super powers to turn the tide in the climates favour. As Bill Clinton once said "it's the economy stupid" and it always will be. Personally ive no problem with it as I think we need to be taken down a peg or two anyway.

fr336

Streetwalker wrote: »

Very few give a hoot about climate change that's the bottom line. You think all those people who rushed out and bought low emissions cars in 2008 for 150 quid a year tax did it because of what might happen in 100 years?? Look at the half assed efforts from the world super powers to turn the tide in the climates favour. As Bill Clinton once said "it's the economy stupid" and it always will be. Personally ive no problem with it as I think we need to be taken down a peg or two anyway.

'We'? But you sound a sensible fellow who at least says it as it is. Humanity never reached its potential did it, and looks like the arrogance of much of it will ensure that never happens.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

When have we run out of resources again ? sure 30 years ago we had 30 years of oil...

We will never run out of oil. There will be oil in a thousand years from now. It will just be so expensive that hardly anyone will be able to afford to use it and the idea of burning it will be considered the height of insanity Global warming wont wipe out humanity in 100 years. Even the explosion of every thermonuclear warhead on earth wont do that. It might reduce the population to a tiny fraction of its current level and reduce the quality of life and life expectancy of the remaining population to pre-medieval levels but humanity will still exist. Only a global superpandemic or a natural disaster on the scale of a giant asteroid impact would take out the entire human race. Besides I thought the DM didn't believe in global warming.

_Brian

Samaris wrote: »

*groans*

Alright, I -am- a climate scientist and while it's nice for once to see it working the other way, this is -not helpful-.

Firstly, he is NOT one of the "world's top scientists", he's an engineer and a science writer. The previous chap that said it is a microbiologist, aka. a "false expert". If I said "I am a scientist and evolution means we will transform into salamanders in 1,000 years", I would still be a "false expert" because I'm not properly trained in the right field.

Yes, climate change is happening, and yes, the only explanation that holds water is that it is anthropogenic in nature. And yes, even if we cut all emissions of CO2 and methane, etc, into the atmosphere right now, we would -still- be on a route to significant and semi-permanent change, since we do see a significant lag in effects.

What we can expect to see is a continuation of sea level rise, probably topping out at about a meter by 2100. This is due to what's called thermal expansion for the most part (water gets bigger when it's warmer - you can see it in action by boiling a kettle ^^) as well as ice melt from land glaciers, such as Greenland.

We can also expect to see a steady increase in extreme hot events and fewer extreme cold events - over Australia in the last fifty years, we see an increase from approximately 1:1 hot:cold events now more like 5:1 hot:cold.

We can expect to see more rogue events - big storms, etc. All of these will have a certain mortality rate, but we will adapt. Certain small island nations may indeed vanish, and their populations have to move elsewhere - that's already going on in two of them, but don't ask me for the names because I can never recall offhand.

Overpopulation isn't entirely a thing, or rather, it IS, but we can probably expect to see a gradual flatlining of the world population, topping out at about 11b. If you look at Japan, they have already hit the Stage IV population status.

Overuse of natural resources is definitely alarming, and we should be doing our best to conserve them. If we don't, we could indeed see a reduction in our quality of life, not to mention what we are doing to our children and grandchildren.

But relax, we're not all on the edge of extinction :P

Damn you and your common sense non headline grabbing approach... how do you expect to sell newspapers to the masses with that attitude... Tell us more about the inevitable looming salamander crisis !!

Streetwalker

fr336 wrote: »

'We'? But you sound a sensible fellow who at least says it as it is. Humanity never reached its potential did it, and looks like the arrogance of much of it will ensure that never happens.

It's in our nature to destroy ourselves. World wars, civil wars, ruining the environment, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc... The sad thing is we never seem to learn from our mistakes and that will be the ending of us all.

Tazio

Mr (not Dr / Prof) David Auerbach quoted statement is wrong. Easter Island inhalants DIDN'T die from over exploitation of natural resources. They were decimated from European diseases brought by European sailing ships.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/rethinking-the-fall-of-easter-island

Nothing like a crappy article attempting to 'prove' a false statement with a 2nd false one.


OH WAIT the daily mail contradicts it own article here ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2898479/Why-population-Easter-Island-really-died-Study-finds-arrival-Europeans-brought-disease-wiped-inhabitants.html

JONJO THE MISER

Climate Change the biggest pack of lies and conspiracy being spun at the moment.
Read up about it and the many scientists who say man made climate change is complete bunk.

PopePalpatine

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Climate Change the biggest pack of lies and conspiracy being spun at the moment.
Read up about it and the many scientists who say man made climate change is complete bunk.

Right, these "many" "climate change skeptic" scientists who make up 3% of climatologists. :rolleyes:

twin_beacon

ClovenHoof wrote: »

One of the world's top scientist has come out and stated that this is it folks.

I am increasingly sickened and revolted by meeting more and more Irish people who question Climate Change. Perhaps for the sake of future generations we need to impose criminal charges on people who question Climate Change along with stripping scientists who are sceptical of their degrees. Enough.:mad:

only Irish people?

JONJO THE MISER

John Coleman who co-founded the Weather Channel calls man made Global warming the greatest scam in history.
I can post up countless other scientists papers and opinions that man made climate change is nothing but a sham.

mickstupp

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

John Coleman who co-founded the Weather Channel calls man made Global warming the greatest scam in history.
I can post up countless other scientists papers and opinions that man made climate change is nothing but a sham.

Please, work away. It may take a while, posting countless other papers and opinions. Not sure any of us will be alive after the first few billion, but please. Would love to see the 'evidence' for this sham.

LadyFenghuang

Climate change is real. And even if it isn't you would still have to behave in similar ways anyway. Recycling still would have to be done you would STILL have to be good to the environment.

PopePalpatine

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

John Coleman who co-founded the Weather Channel calls man made Global warming the greatest scam in history.
I can post up countless other scientists papers and opinions that man made climate change is nothing but a sham.

The same John Coleman who has done a grand total of NO RESEARCH on climate change?

I'll be waiting to see how many of these scientists you'll cite have a cushy job with Big Oil.

Eugene Norman

Streetwalker wrote: »

It's in our nature to destroy ourselves. World wars, civil wars, ruining the environment, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc... The sad thing is we never seem to learn from our mistakes and that will be the ending of us all.

I don't agree. we haven't had a nuclear world war. So we have learned.

I'm optimistic both on reducing dependence on fossil fuels and getting over the changes caused by climate change. Technology will do this not hand waving.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

Feel free to list them, and I'll engage.

S'true, it's not just CO2, but that's the biggest factor and it's the one that everyone tends to know, so it's the one I'm using. I did mention methane, another biggie, somewhere up the thread.

Samaris can I just ask, what's the story with how much methane animals are putting out into the atmosphere and how significant is their output on climate change?

Nobody's going to tell a cow to stop farting :pac:

Samaris

_Brian wrote: »

Damn you and your common sense non headline grabbing approach... how do you expect to sell newspapers to the masses with that attitude... Tell us more about the inevitable looming salamander crisis !!

With some people, you're better off arguing the salamander crisis!

Regarding the lists of people who disagree, a tiny, tiny minority of them are actually climatologists. There's one famous list where all you need a BSc in any subject. A dentist telling you that climate change isn't real, or smoking doesn't cause cancer is " false expert", and to be taken with the same inch of salt as Joe Bloggs down the pub.

97% of people who actually study it, ALL the Academies of Science and even the American Petroleum Scientists (can't recall offhand their specific title) agree on it, albeit very grudgingly in the APS' case. But even they couldn't hold out any longer in the face of the data.

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Samaris can I just ask, what's the story with how much methane animals are putting out into the atmosphere and how significant is their output on climate change?

Nobody's going to tell a cow to stop farting :pac:

Edit: Done some checking up of old notes and the IPCC reports.

Rightie, animal methane emissions are a moderate part of it. CH4 emissions prior to the Industrial Age (1750 is the general approximate date) were about 200-250Tg(CH4)/yr (teragram = 10 to the power of 12 grams/1 trillion grams). Of this, anthropogenic emissions were only about 30-60Tg, taking the widest ranges. (AR4)

Presently, total emissions are averaging at about 582Tg (CH4)/yr (Fifth Assessment report), although there is a wide uncertainty range. Bear in mind that methane does vary quite strongly naturally over time. At the moment, we do have a far higher base figure though. We can probably go with 582Tg. Of that, most is down to land use, which is anthropogenic. Coal mining, fossil fuel industry, landfills/waste, biomass burning, rice paddies (a big one) and ruminents are all anthropogenic. Natural sources include wetlands, the ocean's steady release (which can also be increased by warming) and geological sources.

Approximately a quarter (varying a bit by country) of methane emissions are down to intense stock farming, including all ruminants. This isn't just cows farting though, it's also down to their waste and decomposition/burning thereof.

It is -an- important greenhouse gas, but it is still behind CO2.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Samaris can I just ask, what's the story with how much methane animals are putting out into the atmosphere and how significant is their output on climate change?

Nobody's going to tell a cow to stop farting :pac:

There are ways to possibly catch the emissions of course, which might be uncomfortable for the cow.

dont bother

If you believe that Climate Change exists, then you deserve to die out...

Idbatterim

the way I see it, the quicker fossil fuels rise in price and deplete, the quicker and more viable other alternatives will be developed and implemented. For example if we knew there was infinite oil and no such thing as man made climate change, would there be any desire to research or develop other technologies?

fr336

dont bother wrote: »

If you believe that Climate Change exists, then you deserve to die out...

Yes..........:rolleyes:

Duiske

Menas wrote: »

Good on the daily mail. They get one nut job 'expert' to come out with an outlandish, non-peer reviewed, finding and then publish it. Outstanding journalism yet again!

Whats scary is that people in positions of power actually repeat this garbage as fact. As for the op, if for the last few hundred years scientists had been demoted, or even jailed for questioning other scientists beliefs, theres a good chance we would still be stareing into the night sky believing the stars were in fact fairy dust, sprinkled by some God to brighten the darkness.

fr336

Climate change deniers are a danger to humanity. Even if there was NO evidence for it, I'd bloody want to know if it was a possibility and plan accordingly. Is the future not important to these people? Selfish selfish selfish.

ScumLord

dont bother wrote: »

If you believe that Climate Change exists, then you deserve to die out...

So you don't believe the last ice age happened? If climate change didn't happen we'd probably be living on a planet completely covered in ice. If climate change can happen naturally then there's no reason to assume it can't be affected by humans. The fact is we're removing carbon from the ground and pumping it into the sky, we can't assume that's not going to have zero effect on the atmosphere of earth. We've seen that when volcanoes do it, it causes major climate changes, both short term and long term.

porsche boy

I was all up for a good read on this then I saw it was the daily mail. Nuf said.

Sam Kade

fr336 wrote: »

Climate change deniers are a danger to humanity. Even if there was NO evidence for it, I'd bloody want to know if it was a possibility and plan accordingly. Is the future not important to these people? Selfish selfish selfish.

STFU

fr336

Sam Kade wrote: »

STFU

Sums up the "intellect" on offer.