Are human activities influencing the climate?

Creative83

Well it's hurricane season again and the usual scaremongering is well and truly underway.

I don't believe we are having anywhere near the the kind of influence on climate as is constantly suggested. Just far too many processes and conditions involved that anything us humans are doing is small fry in the great scheme of things.

Now there is now a whole multi-billion dollar industry out there... on par with the oil industry... with peddling the existence of human influenced catastrophic climate change.

elefant

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

Now there is now a whole multi-billion dollar industry out there... on par with the oil industry... with peddling the existence of human influenced catastrophic climate change.

And so, what, 97% of scientists have been bought off by the side with more clout than the oil industry?

Checks out.

Grayson

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

Well it's hurricane season again and the usual scaremongering is well and truly underway.

I don't believe we are having anywhere near the the kind of influence on climate as is constantly suggested. Just far too many processes and conditions involved that anything us humans are doing is small fry in the great scheme of things.

Now there is now a whole multi-billion dollar industry out there... on par with the oil industry... with peddling the existence of human influenced catastrophic climate change.

It doesn't matter what you believe, man made climate change is real.

Slutmonkey57b

Hold on, I'll just check under the pope's hat.

Solomon Pleasant

The world is using its natural resources 1.7 times faster than it should be.

How we currently live, our economy and society, is in absolutely no way sustainable.

To suggest that we are only having a minor impact on the the world's climate when we are polluting an overpopulated planet while fracking and deforestation take place is borderline madness.

SEPT 23 1989

Your opinions are unacceptable OP

Mr. Incognito

https://goo.gl/images/vvukch

https://goo.gl/images/NPvHNo

There's a misconception that all opinions no matter how stupid, ill educated or misinformed are equal.

They are not.

seamus

Evil environmental activists and organisations staffed by volunteers and with very small cash reserves are working with poorly-funded scientists and universities in a grand conspiracy to <????> and the only people standing in their way are some plucky oil companies, billionaires and politicians.

Seems legit.

elefant

elefant wrote: »

And so, what, 97% of scientists have been bought off by the side with more clout than the oil industry?

Checks out.

Grayson wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you believe, man made climate change is real.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Your opinions are unacceptable OP

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

https://goo.gl/images/vvukch

https://goo.gl/images/NPvHNo

There's a misconception that all opinions no matter how stupid, ill educated or misinformed are equal.

They are not.

seamus wrote: »

Evil environmental activists and organisations staffed by volunteers and with very small cash reserves are working with poorly-funded scientists and universities in a grand conspiracy to <????> and the only people standing in their way are some plucky oil companies, billionaires and politicians.

Seems legit.

Am I the only one who can see that the OP isn't denying climate change?


This nonsense is what kills discourse. You think you're gonna convince him it's major instead of minor with your pitchforks?

Harry Palmr

Hang on where are the Earth is Flat/It's all sunspots/No Never Not At All options.

Beefy78

I don't know if you can necessarily blame humans for the recent spate of horrible storms in America and Asia but you have to have your head buried very deep up your own arsehole to not think that our rapidly increasing population and the rampant over-consumption that comes with it, not to mention things like greenhouse gases, mass polution, deforestation and weapon-testing causing tremors a thousand miles away, isn't impacting the planet.

We're like a swarm of greenfly infecting a flowerbed and it isn't going to stop until we've destroyed the whole lot.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Am I the only one who can see that the OP isn't denying climate change?

Yes, you are the only who sees that.

Because the OP is denying climate change. He calls it "scaremongering". He claims "anything us humans are doing is small fry", and that there is a multi-billion dollar industry "peddling" the existence of something he doesn't believe exists.

So yes, you are the only one who thinks that the OP isn't denying climate change.

Because he is.

Any any pedantic nonsense of "I'm not denying climate change, just man-made climate change", can fnck right off.

The climate is changing rapidly, and it's man-made. It's undeniable at this stage.

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

I don't know if you can necessarily blame humans for the recent spate of horrible storms in America and Asia but you have to have your head buried very deep up your own arsehole to not think that our rapidly increasing population and the rampant over-consumption that comes with it, not to mention things like greenhouse gases, mass polution, deforestation and weapon-testing causing tremors a thousand miles away, isn't impacting the planet.

We're like a swarm of greenfly infecting a flowerbed and it isn't going to stop until we've destroyed the whole lot.

His poll options were Minor and Major. He didn't even leave an None option.

Wtf happened boards recently? You're like the people who never read articles, even when there's no article.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Yes, you are the only who sees that.

Because the OP is denying climate change. He calls it "scaremongering". He claims "anything us humans are doing is small fry", and that there is a multi-billion dollar industry "peddling" the existence of something he doesn't believe exists.

So yes, you are the only one who thinks that the OP isn't denying climate change.

Because he is.

Any any pedantic nonsense of "I'm not denying climate change, just man-made climate change", can fnck right off.

The climate is changing rapidly, and it's man-made. It's undeniable at this stage.

Look at the poll. His "small fry" is "minor", not "none". And it's a valid question.. Are people not allowed to discuss this anymore?

Harry Palmr

Something that I think sceptical people forget is that while the earth looks quite big, it's actually quite small and the thickness of the usable atmosphere is about 5 miles, much beyond that and you're sucking space. There are now over 7 billion people and their machines and livestock all chucking out CO2 plus a huge list of pollutants, the shock should be that we are not having a measurable effect, not that we are.

El Weirdo

Oh good, I've just finished reading the Anti-Vaxx thread...

Mr. teddywinkles

Well let's put it this way, humans aren't helping the rate of climate change. Watched a documentary the other day on the big freeze back millions of years ago and what contributed to it was too much oxygen in the atmosphere due to evolving plant life.
Green house gases were reduced significantly and so the earth froze.
I think this only proves it can happen both ways and the balance is fragile but hey we'll plough on regardless.

Creative83

seamus wrote: »

Yes, you are the only who sees that.

Because the OP is denying climate change. He calls it "scaremongering". He claims "anything us humans are doing is small fry", and that there is a multi-billion dollar industry "peddling" the existence of something he doesn't believe exists.

So yes, you are the only one who thinks that the OP isn't denying climate change.

Because he is.

Any any pedantic nonsense of "I'm not denying climate change, just man-made climate change", can fnck right off.

The climate is changing rapidly, and it's man-made. It's undeniable at this stage.

I'm not denying climate change... which on it's own is natural anyway. I'm just not sure to what extent humans are influencing it... nobody is, not even those "97% of scientists" people like you keep referencing... to whom are you referring? The IPCC?? A lot of scientists have their names on that panel and they don't even know why.

The problem is the herd mentality as has been seen so far in this thread. If a scientist show even the slightest of doubt it is the end of their career.

El Weirdo

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Well let's put it this way, humans aren't helping the rate of climate change

That statement can be taken both ways.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Look at the poll. His "small fry" is "minor", not "none". And it's a valid question.

It's "a question". A valid question is one which has merit. This question no longer has merit, it's now up there with "Is the earth round?".

Are people not allowed to discuss this anymore?

We're discussing it right now. OP is full of sh1t. That's discussion.

I might seem dismissive, and that's because I am. When you treat questions like, "Is the earth flat", "are humans causing climate change", "do vaccines cause autism" with any kind of respect, then you partially legitimise them.

These are all solved questions with indisputable answers. Therefore giving them time of day only serves to legitimise them. They're not "valid" questions. They're stupid questions.

c_man

I have no idea what percentage of climate change is due to humans. Scientists say at the moment it's a lot, so we'll go with that until/if it's disproven. In the meantime, moving to greener power sources, reducing pollution etc isn't a bad thing to be doing even if the current models are all wrong.

Ficheall

Chips Lovell

I don't know. I did believe all the scientists, but now the OP has swayed me.

Harry Palmr

c_man wrote: »

I have no idea what percentage of climate change is due to humans. Scientists say at the moment it's a lot, so we'll go with that until/if it's disproven. In the meantime, moving to greener power sources, reducing pollution etc isn't a bad thing to be doing even if the current models are all wrong.

Reducing the consumption of finite resources is a no-brainer unless you are an idiot, esp if you have children/grand-children. They are the ones who'll be picking up the bill for our lazy indulgences.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It's "a question". A valid question is one which has merit. This question no longer has merit, it's now up there with "Is the earth round?".

We're discussing it right now. OP is full of sh1t. That's discussion.

I might seem dismissive, and that's because I am. When you treat questions like, "Is the earth flat", "are humans causing climate change", "do vaccines cause autism" with any kind of respect, then you partially legitimise them.

These are all solved questions with indisputable answers. Therefore giving them time of day only serves to legitimise them. They're not "valid" questions. They're stupid questions.

You're equating a question about the extent of human activity on climate change, with flat earthers?

And you think you're helping and you're right. Well you're not.. It's a pathetic way to deal with someone who isn't even denying human's influence on the climate.


Seriously, just admit you only read the title.

seamus

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

If a scientist show even the slightest of doubt it is the end of their career.

The scientist's job is not to doubt. It is to test. A scientist who "doubts" without evidence is already beginning to discredit themselves, because they should approach all questions with no assumption as to the outcome.

If a scientist were to present data which casts doubt on whether climate change is man-made, and that data were to stand up to independent assessment, then they would be applauded and celebrated.

Nobody wants man-made climate change to be real. We all desperately want it to not be happening. But so far all of the data, every single bit of it, has shown that it is happening, and it is being caused by human activity.

Even the 3% of climate change studies which casted doubt on this have on re-examination been shown to be massively flawed in the execution.

Zillah

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

I'm just not sure to what extent humans are influencing it...

Why do people feel entitled to have an opinion on something about which they have no fracking notion? Did you do your own research and found data that contradicts the ocean of evidence that human industry is causing climate change? If so, then publish it and see how the rest of the scientific community reacts.

Oh, you didn't do such research and you have no evidence? Then whence comes your insightful observations? Your 'common sense'? A dream? Did God tell you?

eeguy

Unless you're a climate scientist, you are not fit to judge these results, so your opinion carries no weight.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously, just admit you only read the title.

No, I read the whole OP. It's clear he denies that humans have any appreciable influence on the climate.

Ficheall

Ficheall wrote: »

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

We've all seen that but it doesn't answer his question about the extent of change it's having on the climate. Where on that graph does it suggest the effect is major instead of minor as the OP believes?
All it says is the North-West passage opened. That's a localised temperature thing that does not equate to changing weather around the world.

I'm sick of the poisoning of every conversation about this sort of topic. It does far more harm than good. Just explain it with some actual facts.

Potatoeman

There is no actual proof of it at the moment. It's all theory. One thing almost all researchers would agree though, is that global warming is far better than global cooling.

OP, I'd suggest you read some of the below.

General climate change questions: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6ertms/askscience_megathread_climate_change/

Good ELI5 on current proof of climate change: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h8c8e/eli5_please_explain_climate_change_proof_like_i/

How severe it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/5dd45z/how_serious_is_climate_changeglobal_warming_and/





To everyone else, maybe read this instead of just shltting on people and feeling smart: https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/04/26/what-makes-climate-science-deniers-change-their-minds-reddit-confessional-gave-us-rare-insight

Zillah

Potatoeman wrote: »

It's all theory.

And in three words you show you don't know anything about the most fundamental principles of science.

In science a theory is a thoroughly tested body of knowledge use to explain countless separate facts. Everything we know about gravity is The Theory of Gravity. Everything we know about bacteria is Germ Theory. Atoms are Atomic Theory. In science a theory is a higher state of knowledge than fact, because a theory accounts for many facts and explains how they all relate to each other.

In general conversation a 'theory' is a guess or a notion. People who know nothing about science think it is used in this sense. It isn't.

Beefy78

Deleted User wrote: »

His poll options were Minor and Major. He didn't even leave an None option.

Wtf happened boards recently? You're like the people who never read articles, even when there's no article.

Where in my post did I suggest otherwise? Bit rich to have a pop at me for not reading his post when you clearly didn't read mine.

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

Where in my post did I suggest otherwise? Bit rich to have a pop at me for not reading his post when you clearly didn't read mine.

"but you have to have your head buried very deep up your own arsehole " .... "isn't impacting the climate".

Isn't = None

Or were you not implying that it was OP with his head up his arsehole?

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

And in three words you show you don't know anything about the most fundamental principles of science.

In science a theory is a thoroughly tested body of knowledge use to explain countless separate facts. Everything we know about gravity is The Theory of Gravity. Everything we know about bacteria is Germ Theory. Atoms are Atomic Theory. In science a theory is a higher state of knowledge than fact, because a theory accounts for many facts and explains how they all relate to each other.

In general conversation a 'theory' is a guess or a notion. People who know nothing about science think it is used in this sense. It isn't.

I think you misread his post.. It pretty much is all theory right now, isn't it? And it didn't sound like he was denying that theory.

So using whatever definition of proof that science uses, can you link to actual proof of our affect on the climate? (not ocean levels etc.)


I know that global temperature basically is climate but I'd be more interested in climate events. Like from my understanding, it's basically impossible that we can say that climate change is making hurricanes stronger because the sample size is too small.

Richard Hillman

Yes, I believe we are responsible but as a respecter of science, I believe both sides should be heard.

I believe that overpopulation is the biggest driver, followed by cutting down trees.

We had an opportunity with Ebola and we messed it up. The planet self regulates itself amazingly. Eventually it will find something we can't stop how its nature can thrive

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Yes, I believe we are responsible but as a respecter of science, I believe both sides should be heard.

I believe that overpopulation is the biggest driver, followed by cutting down trees.

We had an opportunity with Ebola and we messed it up. The planet self regulates itself amazingly. Eventually it will find something we can't stop how its nature can thrive

I'm pretty sure the trees thing is a tad overrated. We lose a third of a percent of our trees per year, but trees only account for 25% of CO2 > Oxygen..

It always feels like most people don't realise algae does most of it. And I don't understand why the effect of the oceans warming and potentially threatening that isn't talked about more.

Mr. teddywinkles

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the trees thing is a tad overrated. We lose a third of a percent of our trees per year, but trees only account for 25% of CO2 > Oxygen..

It always feels like most people don't realise algae does most of it. And I don't understand why the effect of the oceans warming and potentially threatening that isn't talked about more.

Soil erosion due to deforestation is a major one I'd say. Any mechanical venture by humans in general has a detrimental to the environment. Weather it be small or big is up for debate. Don't forget all the major wildfires this year too. Becoming so common now there hardly reported any more.

IvySlayer

Warmer sea temperatures and higher sea levels caused by humans have made hurricanes even more dangerous.

There's the proof.

Storms that would be a once in a lifetime event are becoming more and more regular

IvySlayer

IvySlayer wrote: »

Warmer sea temperatures and higher sea levels caused by humans have made hurricanes even more dangerous.

There's the proof.

Storms that would be a once in a lifetime event are becoming more and more regular

I'm not denying it's true, but that's not proof.

The poster above got ridiculed because of what I believe was a misunderstanding, so I'm asking for some proof, as that's exactly what he said we didn't have in his post.

Potatoeman

Zillah wrote: »

And in three words you show you don't know anything about the most fundamental principles of science.

In science a theory is a thoroughly tested body of knowledge use to explain countless separate facts. Everything we know about gravity is The Theory of Gravity. Everything we know about bacteria is Germ Theory. Atoms are Atomic Theory. In science a theory is a higher state of knowledge than fact, because a theory accounts for many facts and explains how they all relate to each other.

In general conversation a 'theory' is a guess or a notion. People who know nothing about science think it is used in this sense. It isn't.

This is why you have to prove your theory. Gravity is a proven and accepted theory where as evolution is an accepted but unproven theory as their is no evidence of the missing link so far. You can't expect people to make sweeping changes on an unsubstantiated theory. You need to prove your theory,

Dramatik

Ye can't blame me if I'm dead in ground a few hundred years, ha ha suckers!

diomed

Great chart above.
I learned that thermometers were invented in 20000 BC and humans moving to Argentina caused global warming.

professore

Potatoeman wrote: »

There is no actual proof of it at the moment. It's all theory. One thing almost all researchers would agree though, is that global warming is far better than global cooling.

Like the Theory of Gravitation is a theory. Now go jump off a 50 storey building since gravity is only a theory.

professore

Potatoeman wrote: »

This is why you have to prove your theory. Gravity is a proven and accepted theory where as evolution is an accepted but unproven theory as their is no evidence of the missing link so far. You can't expect people to make sweeping changes on an unsubstantiated theory. You need to prove your theory,

In a scientific sense, you can never prove a theory. You can only show countless examples of it being correct and give an estimate of how likely it is to be correct in all cases.

People online on the other hand, can disprove that smoking causes lung cancer by claiming Auntie Mary smoked 100 cigarettes a day until she was 95, and adding FACT at the end of every sentence.

IvySlayer

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not denying it's true, but that's not proof.

The poster above got ridiculed because of what I believe was a misunderstanding, so I'm asking for some proof, as that's exactly what he said we didn't have in his post.

Scientists have predicted this for decades, they formed a probable conclusion based on available research and evidence and looks like they are right..

IvySlayer

IvySlayer wrote: »

Scientists have predicted this for decades, they formed a probable conclusion based on available research and evidence and looks like they are right..

Na, that doesn't really cut it though, like at all.


"Warmer sea temperatures and higher sea levels caused by humans have made hurricanes even more dangerous.

There's the proof.

Storms that would be a once in a lifetime event are becoming more and more regular"


There haven't been dangerous hurricanes since 2005, for the US anyway, even though the waters have been warmer. The most powerful and deadly happened long ago before all of the warming.
And once in a life-time events or 100-year floods are just based on probability. Nothing in Maths says the same lotto numbers can't come up two weeks in a row.


So at the moment, we're at a point where we can say "Irma is likely stronger because of rising sea temperatures." or "the wildfires were probably made worse because things were drier".

Again, that poster said "There's no actual proof", so now I'm asking for it. If you didn't treat me like a denier, this would go a lot smoother.

Potatoeman

professore wrote: »

In a scientific sense, you can never prove a theory. You can only show countless examples of it being correct and give an estimate of how likely it is to be correct in all cases.

People online on the other hand, can disprove that smoking causes lung cancer by claiming Auntie Mary smoked 100 cigarettes a day until she was 95, and adding FACT at the end of every sentence.

Most people accept that smoking causes cancer as the statistics back up the theory. The problem with global warming is that there are many other possible factors. So how do you actually prove it?

jamesbere

The way I'm farting today I'd say I'm having a definite impact on the climate

Zillah

Potatoeman wrote: »

This is why you have to prove your theory. Gravity is a proven and accepted theory where as evolution is an accepted but unproven theory as their is no evidence of the missing link so far. You can't expect people to make sweeping changes on an unsubstantiated theory. You need to prove your theory,

Evolution is one of the best supported theories in the world. You only think otherwise because you have no idea what you're talking about. Scientific theories, by definition, have been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. If your theory doesn't have overwhelming evidence in its favour then it is not a scientific theory, it is only a hypothesis.

Still blows my mind that people who don't understand science feel they're in any position to argue with people. You literally don't know what you're talking about. Have you read any actual books on evolution? Can you tell me what the best evidence for it is? Do you know anything substantial about fossils, genetics, and the tree of life? You don't, so why do you think you're in any position to form an opinion on evolution?