Humans Have Only 100 Years Left

mikom

But, but, the Daily Mail said it were the cannabis skunk weed that would get me, however now it is the climate change.

What if we sowed the planet with cannabis skunk weed and that halted climate change.........

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

We know all this way to dodge the question how much have we affected the climate ? As a scientist one should know the sun has pretty much 99% input into the entire earth's weather system. There is plenty we don't have a clue about, I'm sure people can tell the rest of the class how ice ages start off not theory measured results peer reviewed and proven. How are those climate models going the doom and gloom ones that are always way way out and have to be revised on a 10 year scale for example. The predictions are not matching the data collected, Shock as the weather system is very complex.

There is no direct percentage that one can give. I think you know that. "We have 35% more climate than we used to have" is a nonsensical statement.

"Input" is a tricky word. The sun also "inputs" into Mars, Venus, Jupiter and all the rest. So, why is Mars, not so much further away from us, so cold? Why is Venus, not -that- much closer to the Sun than us so hot? They don't have enough atmosphere (due to a range of reasons that are fairly irrelevant to this debate).

The Sun is the basis for very close to all of our -energy-. However, it's how that energy is processed that gives us the ability to have life down here.

Yep, climate models have to be reviewed and they -are-. Just like any other tool.

I am not trying to avoid your question; your question cannot be answered. "How long is a spoon?" I am giving you the observational evidence that has been collected as well as the theoretical underpinnings of what we are looking for. The models are actually not as far off as you might think, but of course they are simplified. So far, we are actually seeing pretty much what the most consistent models have been forecasting.


Mandatory disclaimer: I am NOT arguing pro this article, this article is bull**** of the highest order and a microbiologist may be a very good one, but he's not in the right field. We are NOT going extinct in the next hundred years from climate change or anything else he spoke of. However, the science is real and there, and the consensus is firm. Yes, it's happening, yes, it's caused by humans.

Grayson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

We know all this way to dodge the question how much have we affected the climate ? As a scientist one should know the sun has pretty much 99% input into the entire earth's weather system. There is plenty we don't have a clue about, I'm sure people can tell the rest of the class how ice ages start off not theory measured results peer reviewed and proven. How are those climate models going ? the doom and gloom ones that are always way way out and have to be revised on a 10 year scale for example. The predictions are not matching the data collected, Shock as the weather system is very complex.

Yet over 97% percent of climate scientists agree with the finding of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is occuring
2) Climate change is getting worse
3) it is man made.

And yes, they do incorporate the sun into their models.

Rhys Essien

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.

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

The Backwards Man

Anybody can measure a spoon, but nobody can say why there were crocodiles at the North Pole.

Science is like a show pony, grand for riding around the house, but not much good at pulling a plough.

Spudmonkey

David Auerbach? Isn't he the lad from the Black Keys?

darkpagandeath

Grayson wrote: »

Yet over 97% percent of climate scientists agree with the finding of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is occuring
2) Climate change is getting worse
3) it is man made.

And yes, they do incorporate the sun into their models.

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.

blinding

Is the Life that the average human has really all that ! ! !

It won't be a big loss. Might as well Party like its 99 years to go !

Adamocovic

razorblunt wrote: »

Bring back the Ice Age, we'll all be experts in erosion and deposition of glaciers from the years of Geography in school.

I don't think rebooting that film franchise is the best use of our time, despite the educational aspects of it.

The Backwards Man

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 the one where Danny Glover got run over by an aircraft carrier?

Spudmonkey

DM are gas.

Nutjob gives his opinion. Some stock photos of the sun and chimneys throwing out fumes.

I could write this ****...

darkpagandeath

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Anybody can measure a spoon, but nobody can say why there were crocodiles at the North Pole.

Science is like a show pony, grand for riding around the house, but not much good at pulling a plough.

Earth's plates move North pole was not always where it was. One great continent broke up and formed all the others over time.

Samaris

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.

-There is no number-. You are asking a nonsensical question. Climate is not -calculable- in percentages. I have given you the numbers of CO2 increase in ppm from 1750-2013 at least. I have given a ratio of hot events to cold events in Australia fifty years ago and today. Those are just two examples.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am NOT arguing pro this article, this article is bull**** of the highest order and a microbiologist may be a very good one, but he's not in the right field. We are NOT going extinct in the next hundred years from climate change or anything else he spoke of. However, the science is real.

blinding

Bring it on I am just in the Mood to head butt God !

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

-There is no number-. You are asking a nonsensical question. Climate is not -calculable- in percentages. I have given you the numbers of CO2 increase in ppm from 1750-2013 at least. I have given a ratio of hot events to cold events in Australia fifty years ago and today. Those are just two examples.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am NOT arguing pro this article, this article is bull**** of the highest order and a microbiologist may be a very good one, but he's not in the right field. We are NOT going extinct in the next hundred years from climate change or anything else he spoke of. However, the science is real.

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

The Backwards Man

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Earth's plates move North pole was not always where it was. One great continent broke up and formed all the others over time.

Na, this was only (only I say!:D) fifty million years ago, the Earth looked much like it does now, but the Arctic circle was swarming with cold blooded reptiles and boozed up Brits abroad.*

*may have made that bit up.

alroley

lmao sure.

darkpagandeath

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Na, this was only (only I say!:D) fifty million years ago, the Earth looked much like it does now, but the Arctic circle was swarming with cold blooded reptiles and boozed up Brits abroad.

UK was also grass savanna like Africa at one stage. Earth's climate is not as set as people make out.

RobertKK

Climate change is happening, but one can question the extent that humans are responsible.
We know in the past 1,000 we had the medieval warm period, where temperatures were around current levels, then after that we entered the little ice age around the 1600s, and Earth has being getting warmer since then.
I am not saying there is not man made climate change, but it is possible most of the warming has been natural.
We should also remember the cooling that happened between the 1940s and and the early 1970s, when the concern was we were heading towards an ice age.
Scientists then were saying the evidence was so compelling, and governments would have to act given the consequences of this cooling.
Then warming happened, and everything flipped again.
The thing is Earth has similar CO2 as was present 800,000 years ago, long after the dinosaurs, but before humans were present on Earth.

The best things humans could do would be to protect natural forests like rainforests and stop deforestation around the planet, invest in more renewable energy and put countries like Saudi Arabia out of business...

darkpagandeath

RobertKK wrote: »

Climate change is happening, but one can question the extent that humans are responsible.
We know in the past 1,000 we had the medieval warm period, where temperatures were around current levels, then after that we entered the little ice age around the 1600s, and Earth has being getting warmer since then.
I am not saying there is not man made climate change, but it is possible most of the warming has been natural.
We should also remember the cooling that happened between the 1940s and and the early 1970s, when the concern was we were heading towards an ice age.
Scientists then were saying the evidence was so compelling, and governments would have to act given the consequences of this cooling.
Then warming happened, and everything flipped again.
The thing is Earth has similar CO2 as was present 800,000 years ago, long after the dinosaurs, but before humans were present on Earth.

The best things humans could do would be to protect natural forests like rainforests and stop deforestation around the planet, invest in more renewable energy and put countries like Saudi Arabia out of business...

Well we get most of our oxygen from marine plants and algae for example. And scrub out CO2 via Photosynthesis

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.