Humans Have Only 100 Years Left

Samaris

Oops, convo moved on during my editing. One Eyed Jack, I edited my answer to your question on methane into the post up above there.

Edit (again)
Aha, a clearer bunch of estimates:
Fossil Fuels - 110million tons/yr.
Livestock - 90m/t
Landfill and Waste - 55m/t
Biomass - 38m/t
Rice paddies - 31m/t
Biofuals - 12m/t


Natural Sources
Wetlands - 147m/t
Termites (yep!) - 23m/t
Oceans - 19m/t

Source: Bousquet, P., S. et al (2006) Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability.

Sam Kade

fr336 wrote: »

Sums up the "intellect" on offer.

Sorry to question your intelligence but it's man made climate change that people question, climate change has and always will be happening.

Cee-Jay-Cee

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:

Yes, imprison people for their views on the weather. Well done on coming up with the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long time.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

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.

Samaris wrote: »

Oops, convo moved on during my editing. One Eyed Jack, I edited my answer to your question on methane into the post up above there.

Edit (again)
Aha, a clearer bunch of estimates:
Fossil Fuels - 110million tons/yr.
Livestock - 90m/t
Landfill and Waste - 55m/t
Biomass - 38m/t
Rice paddies - 31m/t
Biofuals - 12m/t


Natural Sources
Wetlands - 147m/t
Termites (yep!) - 23m/t
Oceans - 19m/t

Source: Bousquet, P., S. et al (2006) Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability.

Cheers for that Samaris, I had read before about the effects of intense farming and deforestation in Brazil years ago was contributing to climate change, along with the the Industrial and Agricultural revolution in the Western World, but the paddy fields one surprised me alright!

StewartGriffin

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:

But it's precisely because of blatantly ridiculous predictions like the one at the top of this thread, that make rational people skeptical if the entire thing.

Streetwalker

Eugene Norman wrote: »

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.

Love your optimism but we've already had two huge incidents with nuclear power and it's only been around 60 or so years. Not to mention Cuban missile crisis and more and more nations getting their hands on nukes. I'm not a betting person but I don't like the odds. As far as the other stuff and the human race learning I shouldn't need to list off some off the on going wars on the planet at the moment and the way man treats his fellow humans. look at ISIS, look at Israel, look at the US, look at Saudi, look at North Korea I could go on and on...

Unfortunately greed and the need for power is an on going struggle that has been around since the creation of man/woman and we've learned sfa.

Eugene Norman

Streetwalker wrote: »

Love your optimism but we've already had two huge incidents with nuclear power and it's only been around 60 or so years. Not to mention Cuban missile crisis and more and more nations getting their hands on nukes. I'm not a betting person but I don't like the odds. As far as the other stuff and the human race learning I shouldn't need to list off some off the on going wars on the planet at the moment and the way man treats his fellow humans. look at ISIS, look at Israel, look at the US, look at Saudi, look at North Korea I could go on and on...

Unfortunately greed and the need for power is an on going struggle that has been around since the creation of man/woman and we've learned sfa.

Nuclear power isn't the same argument as nuclear war. And it's largely safe. In fact it may be one of the solutions to climate change.

In general the number of wars and conflicts has been diminishing over the last 50 years. If the U.S. wasn't do extraordinary belligerent post cold war it would be better, of course.

ScumLord

Streetwalker wrote: »

Love your optimism but we've already had two huge incidents with nuclear power and it's only been around 60 or so years.

I'm pretty sure if you compared nuclear power to any of the other major providers of power the deaths per kilowatt would be much lower than you'd think. Even Chernobyl hasn't had quite the negative effect people were expecting.

It is costly to deal with nuclear power fallout, but its legacy power plants that are the result of a cold nuclear war that are the problem, there are designs for alternative cleaner power plants out there that we could use.

Samaris

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if you compared nuclear power to any of the other major providers of power the deaths per kilowatt would be much lower than you'd think. Even Chernobyl hasn't had quite the negative effect people were expecting.

It is costly to deal with nuclear power fallout, but its legacy power plants that are the result of a cold nuclear war that are the problem, there are designs for alternative cleaner power plants out there that we could use.

True. You can also factor in the huge rate of morbidity from smog and combustion, but of course, it's very difficult to get a precise number.

The major issue with nuclear energy is just what to do with the waste. It IS much less waste than from coal and oil, but it's toxic and survives a hell of a long time. There is also the fear issues - very few people really -want-to live near a nuclear power plant. There are always "what ifs" floating around. Not to mention the fear of their being terrorist targets.

Nuclear power is cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuels, especially compared to shale/fracking, but it does have a very bad reputation.

TomBtheGoat

darkpagandeath wrote: »

When is that comet hitting again ?

Yesterday I think.

blinding

So ! Over the last number of Years Our Politicians, Bankers, Some Media (Maybe All), Police and I am sure at least some scientists(I doubt they are all paragons of virtue) and Numerous other Fookers have lied cheated and stolen from us……

AND YOU EXPECT US TO BELIEVE ANYTHING THESE FOOKERS TELL US………………………………pull the other one its got bells on it ! ! !

semionova

blinding wrote: »

So ! Over the last number of Years Our Politicians, Bankers, Some Media (Maybe All), Police and I am sure at least some scientists(I doubt they are all paragons of virtue) and Numerous other Fookers have lied cheated and stolen from us……

AND YOU EXPECT US TO BELIEVE ANYTHING THESE FOOKERS TELL US………………………………pull the other one its got bells on it ! ! !

And the guy who sold me these magic beans!

PopePalpatine

blinding wrote: »

So ! Over the last number of Years Our Politicians, Bankers, Some Media (Maybe All), Police and I am sure at least some scientists(I doubt they are all paragons of virtue) and Numerous other Fookers have lied cheated and stolen from us……

AND YOU EXPECT US TO BELIEVE ANYTHING THESE FOOKERS TELL US………………………………pull the other one its got bells on it ! ! !

Yes, because Big Oil is so trustworthy isn't it?

jimgoose

jimgoose wrote: »

Good. Fcuk 'em.

Yeah, feckin "humans" as they like to be known :rolleyes:





:pac:

blinding

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, because Big Oil is so trustworthy isn't it?

You can't trust any of the Fookers.. Any of the Fookers…Any of the Fookers…..

semionova

blinding wrote: »

You can't trust any of the Fookers.. Any of the Fookers…Any of the Fookers…..

That's a lot of fookers!

blinding

semionova wrote: »

That's a lot of fookers!

Basically who can you trust these days ? ? ?

This is why we need to have some accountability but the Fookers just keep on lying,stealing,cheating,committing Fraud.

And Then We have Innocents Expecting Us to Believe anything that they tell us………………….ahhhhhhhhhhhhh:mad:

Sheep Lover

I burn tyres and kittens in my back garden just to piss off these eco mentalists. I laugh manically as I see the lumps of carbon and fur punch yet another hole in our ozone layer.

Samaris

One thing that you can say for scientists is that they DO have accountability. The peer review process is tough. Things can be proven -wrong-, and discredited by repeated examination and/or testing. That is the natural way of things. Nothing is ever considered absolute, but eventually by consensus (evidence-driven, not opinion-driven), a general idea is founded and expanded upon by further investigation, building on the repeatedly tested work of others.

Just sometimes you get monumental eff-ups, but again, they tend to be noted by the rest of the community if the journal fails to do peer-review (which is why it's important to check your journal!)


Nothing's perfect, but peer review is one of the better ways so far.

DarkoT

Oh yes another end of the world or the humanity, just because some ''scientists'' said so.

Samaris

That guy's a science writer rather than a scientist.

And the other bloke was a microbiologist. So no, no-one's taking this one seriously.

Greentopia

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

/thread could have closed after that methinks.
Thank's Samaris.

PizzamanIRL

Everyone reading this thread will be dead by then, so who cares? Your great grand kids? Meh.

Greentopia

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Everyone reading this thread will be dead by then, so who cares? Your great grand kids? Meh.

I care about the world we will leave behind for them. Not to is selfish and irresponsible IMO. Also, it's not all about us, we share the plant with millions of other species.
We have no right to fcuk things up for them even if we're so stupid as to make life intolerable here for our own, and being here means we have a responsibility not to destroy the only planet we all have to live on.

Samaris

Greentopia wrote: »

I care about the world we will leave behind for them. Not to is selfish and irresponsible IMO. Also, it's not all about us, we share the plant with millions of other species.
We have no right to fcuk things up for them even if we're so stupid as to make life intolerable here for our own, and being here means we have a responsibility not to destroy the only planet we all have to live on.

This world is a beautiful, incredible place, and the journey its taken from about 4,540MY to get to here, to a point in time where it's sheltered us through our rise from apes is just amazing. I've recently been reading up on the beginnings of the solar system and all these freak chances (or if you're a religious type - godly intervention!) are just incredible.

It would be a dreadful shame to screw it up in the space of a couple of hundred years! Really, it's since the Industrial Revolution that we're really starting to see the effects. We are an extremely clever and adaptive species, but we are also tribalistic and inclined only to consider what's right in front of us and affecting us and those closest to us. We don't think well in the long-term, yet as one of the few species with that capacity, we should use it!

TheLastMohican

In the life of the Universe - this has happened maybe a million times. Hot cold. Cold hot. We just live here. Just the same as the huge animals of yore. Did their emanation of methane contribute to mass extinctions in the past? We are but beads of sweat in the armpit of the great frog. Peace!

Antarctica

Google "population graph humans" and see how the population has dramatically spiked since 1800

Greentopia

Samaris wrote: »

This world is a beautiful, incredible place, and the journey its taken from about 4,540MY to get to here, to a point in time where it's sheltered us through our rise from apes is just amazing. I've recently been reading up on the beginnings of the solar system and all these freak chances (or if you're a religious type - godly intervention!) are just incredible.

It would be a dreadful shame to screw it up in the space of a couple of hundred years! Really, it's since the Industrial Revolution that we're really starting to see the effects. We are an extremely clever and adaptive species, but we are also tribalistic and inclined only to consider what's right in front of us and affecting us and those closest to us. We don't think well in the long-term, yet as one of the few species with that capacity, we should use it!

Couldn't agree more. Cowboy Capitalism and greed mainly I believe are at the heart of the reasons for the mess we've made of our beautiful planet.

Yes the ideas on how the solar system came into being are very interesting. Not a scientist (and no, not a godly type at all either) but have massive respect for science and the scientific method and was watching a video recently of an interview with the renowned Mathematical Physicist Edward Witten on string theory and M-theory and the origins of the universe. Fascinating stuff.

feargale

Steven81 wrote: »

Wont bother me, i will be well gone

You have no children or grandchildren, then?

feargale

ScumLord wrote: »

The human race not only survived an ice age but thrived in it. Which is strange for an animal that evolved in a dust bowl plagued by dought. The height of their technological achievements was making a sharp stone.

Humans will be able to survive just about anything that happens to this planet. It's all the other animals that are ****ed.

Oh great! We'll all be vegetarian then.

Not a NSA agent

feargale wrote: »

Oh great! We'll all be vegetarian then.

A world without bacon isn't a world worth saving. Burn it all.

Autonomous Cowherd

Whatever about the debate re climate change and its causes i see it simply as this...

we are brainy enough to be able to run our mother ship on RENEWABLE resources,( and brainy enough to be able to produce enough resources to comfortably tend the needs of all our fellow cosmonauts) and yet... we insist on draining the mother ship of non-renewable resources (and keeping fellow crew in the dankest vaults). So, the question is why do we use non renewable resources? I reckon it is not so much about our inability to think long term. many of us are quite capable of that, thanks....but follow the money trail. The wealthiest people on our mother ship are invested up to the oxters in oil. They are in charge of the bridge (feckers!)

biko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEQghbA3pLM

fr336

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Everyone reading this thread will be dead by then, so who cares? Your great grand kids? Meh.

We have been able to look back on our grandparents and great grandparents as heros in world wars and what have you. You want to be remembered as a selfish joke?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

fr336 wrote: »

We have been able to look back on our grandparents and great grandparents as heros in world wars and what have you. You want to be remembered as a selfish joke?

Hey. Our generation brought big brother and the selfie. If that isn't progress I dont know what is.

fr336

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Hey. Our generation brought big brother and the selfie. If that isn't progress I dont know what is.

Have you noticed how those humans who innovate and make progress would tend to also be for preserving our planet and species and very cautious of climate change? Meanwhile the asset strippers and their many, many brainwashed fans don't really care about....well anything, really. Oh apart from wars cos ya know we have to protect our children's futures :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

PizzamanIRL

fr336 wrote: »

We have been able to look back on our grandparents and great grandparents as heros in world wars and what have you. You want to be remembered as a selfish joke?

Don't really care tbh.

blinding

Is Human civilisation All That ? ? ?

Is it really worth saving ? ? ?

Maybe we should have just one big Party and say……………………………..

darkpagandeath

blinding wrote: »

Is Human civilisation All That ? ? ?

Is it really worth saving ? ? ?

Maybe we should have just one big Party and say……………………………..

The earth is not becoming uninhabitable. The weather has been pretty calm (unusually actually) for the last couple of century's but you wont hear them saying that.

gk5000

Has there been one useful result of all this climate change bs?

Look at some of it:
- The greens got into bed with Bertie to fcuk the country good
- Cheap tax to new diesel cars - while scrapping usable older card
- Banned decent lightbulbs
- Building pylons up and down the country for subsidised windfarm
- Cutting down rain forest to grow palm oil
- Using food/farmland for bio-diesel..subsidised

Subsidising and grants to these 97% climate gang

Mackas_view

I thought the majority of the western world knew to completely disregard any bullsh1t published in that rag of a paper.

Sam Kade

fr336 wrote: »

We have been able to look back on our grandparents and great grandparents as heros in world wars and what have you. You want to be remembered as a selfish joke?

You my friend seem to be getting all your anti man made climate change criticisms from American websites, think for yourself and stop depending on the internet to do your thinking for you

Eugene Norman

Sam Kade wrote: »

You my friend seem to be getting all your anti man made climate change criticisms from American websites, think for yourself and stop depending on the internet to do your thinking for you

He's getting his opinions from peer reviewed science and hundreds of papers on the subject, you are getting your ideas from American science denying websites.

KomradeBishop

Steven81 wrote: »

Wont bother me, i will be well gone

This is actually a surprisingly good summary of the entire problem. Humans are hard-wired to think only of short-term/immediate threats to survival, and not long-term threats:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/apocalypse-neuro-why-our-brain-cant-process-the-planets-gravest-threats

Sam Kade

Eugene Norman wrote: »

He's getting his opinions from peer reviewed science and hundreds of papers on the subject, you are getting your ideas from American science denying websites.

Really, so tell me what ideas did I refer to?

darkpagandeath

Eugene Norman wrote: »

He's getting his opinions from peer reviewed science and hundreds of papers on the subject, you are getting your ideas from American science denying websites.

why are loads of scientist wanting their names taken off that UN report as it's completely exaggerated ?

sdanseo

Samaris wrote: »

We can also expect to see a steady increase in extreme hot events and fewer extreme cold events

...except in Ireland, where with any luck the cessation or slacking of the North Atlantic Drift will result in snowfests lasting many months.

DarkoT

Yes all humans that live now (I mean in this moment) will be dead in a life span of 100 years :P. Maybe a few will survive, but the rest of us are doomed... If you know what I mean

ScumLord

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This is actually a surprisingly good summary of the entire problem. Humans are hard-wired to think only of short-term/immediate threats to survival, and not long-term threats:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/apocalypse-neuro-why-our-brain-cant-process-the-planets-gravest-threats

I don't think that's true and that article seems to take some liberties with some facts. Like how he blames the people of easter Island for deforesting their island when that's been shown to not be the case.

The human brain has often been called a prediction machine. It's constantly running it's own internal simulations. We always contemplate what consequences our actions will have. There's proof all over the place that humans are constantly thinking about the future, just look at the pyramids, look at any medieval church, people would have known when they started that they probably wouldn't see it finished.

The problem with climate change is that it's an issue on a scale that we've never had to deal with before, it's global. It's one thing to realise the problem but it's another thing entirely to get societies thousands of miles away from each other to compromise. Especially when the developed nations try telling the developing nations not to do all the things that made them developed nations.

KomradeBishop

Well, even people who understand the long-term unsustainability of climate change, tend to have zero understanding that it is caused by long-term unsustainability of our economic system itself (particularly the monetary system) - people have been blind to that for a very long time, and it's something that triggers pretty massive cognitive dissonance in people (people vary between either not wanting to know, or finding a myriad of lame excuses to justify the current system).

With the pyramids or any large construction project, the problem is tangible and immediately visible, but with something like climate change or the unsustainability of economic systems, the problem is more abstract and not directly visible - and this seems to make it almost impossible for a lot of people to even comprehend such topics.

Solving climate change doesn't require co-ordination worldwide - one country, such as the US, could engage in a New Deal type project to completely revamp the countries infrastructure, and a Manhatten-Project style technological research effort to develop new energy technologies that the whole world can benefit from.

Countries can start this now individually, but the problem is economic ideology: Fighting climate change directly requires big government spending, which is what the current dominant economic ideology opposes completely.