Humans Have Only 100 Years Left

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.

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.