Climate Change - what are the impacts?

[ManiaCCC]

People thinking that human activity is causing these global events are funny...

[Rodna]

I actually feel offended by you as I have not lied. I might be incorrect on some things but not lieing. Please don't bash me.

I'm not bashing you. I'm pointing out your post is filled with half truths, misrepresentations and lies.

We have some evidence to show some climate change has happened. BUT we do NOT have enough to say we are causing this 100%

We do not have "100%" evidence that gravity is real. I invite you to jump off a tower. And you're lying here when you claim that there is only "some" evidence. The evidence is overwhelming. It is ridiculous, and intellectually dishonest to the extreme, to claim otherwise at this point in our knowledge.

but statiscally with climate change we need more data over a longer time period.

No, we don't. This is not a question of statistics. There is clear, unambiguous, and direct evidence of anthropogenic forcing derived from basic thermodynamics.

I did state specifically cars and cows in my defense. If you can provide proof that I am wrong I am all for it and would retract my statement.

You said farm animals, but fine.

Car Emission: 4.8 metric tons CO2E /vehicle/year (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energ...rces/refs.html)

Cow Emission: Cows emits up to 135kg methane per year (Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-D6-0011.), and even if we take that number for methane, which is 20+ times worse than CO2 (http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis...gases/ch4.html), it is still only 2.7 metric tons in CO2 equivalent.

The information I had was 5 years ago from books I can go and look up some sources if you want

Then go look them up.

The global stats someone linked a short while ago does show they are quite close by a few percent.

So which is it, you want cows vs cars or actually transportation vs agriculture?

back a few hundred million years the suns out put was far less

And where is your non-existent evidence for this?

---------- Post added 2013-04-08 at 01:41 PM ----------

People thinking that human activity is causing these global events are funny...

People thinking ignoring reality makes it go away are cute...

[khalltusk]

I'm not bashing you. I'm pointing out your post is filled with half truths, misrepresentations and lies.


We do not have "100%" evidence that gravity is real. I invite you to jump off a tower. And you're lying here when you claim that there is only "some" evidence. The evidence is overwhelming. It is ridiculous, and intellectually dishonest to the extreme, to claim otherwise at this point in our knowledge.


No, we don't. This is not a question of statistics. There is clear, unambiguous, and direct evidence of anthropogenic forcing derived from basic thermodynamics.


You said farm animals, but fine.

Car Emission: 4.8 metric tons CO2E /vehicle/year (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energ...rces/refs.html)

Cow Emission: Cows emits up to 135kg methane per year (Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-D6-0011.), and even if we take that number for methane, which is 20+ times worse than CO2 (http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis...gases/ch4.html), it is still only 2.7 metric tons in CO2 equivalent.


Then go look them up.


So which is it, you want cows vs cars or actually transportation vs agriculture?


And where is your non-existent evidence for this?

---------- Post added 2013-04-08 at 01:41 PM ----------



People thinking ignoring reality makes it go away are cute...

I'll answer the last point first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous_Thermal_Maximum. (or unless you mean about the suns output increase being non existent please tell me you dont think that right? since its a very well observed feature of most suns we know)
Here is a link had to search for it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_sun look under life phases.

I am not being dishonest on the account of requiring more evidence. I firmly believe we are impacting our enviroment from the data I have seen. But to what extent and how quickly is still up for debate. Regardless we need to make more of an effort to be eco friendly. Or at least reduce what we can in terms of pollution both in air and garbage (like plastic bags being dumped into the sea) not to mention over fishing which is a bigger threat right now than global warming.

Thanks for the info on cows, that's quite enlightening. I won't be an ass over it and say ok I was incorrect. Still the fact is its a high amount. Farming animals and plant life has had a major impact and our need for more food does increases with population size.

I will also state once again I am not lieing. You are being rude to the extreme. I may be incorrect (major difference) but I am not making lies.

[Rodna]

I'll answer the last point first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous_Thermal_Maximum.

You claimed that "back a few hundred million years the suns out put was far less... but the temp was higher than it is now". I'm asking you for evidence that this was true. You need to show that at the same time as the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum, the sun's output was "far less" than it is now. Linking a random article saying there was such a warm period - without saying anything about the sun - is irrelevant garbage.

(or unless you mean about the suns output increase being non existent please tell me you dont think that right?

Who said anything about "non existent"?

I am not being dishonest on the account of requiring more evidence

It is misleading and dishonest to portray the vast body of evidence we have as "some evidence".

Regardless we need to make more of an effort to be eco friendly.

Okay. That's fine.

I will also state once again I am not lieing. You are being rude to the extreme. I may be incorrect (major difference) but I am not making lies.

It is very difficult to look at a factually incorrect statement like "[t]he actual truth is we don't have enough evidence in either debate", without being reminded that it is a very oft-repeated lie. Even if you did not mean to lie, you are regurgitating one of the most common lies from the anti-science lobby.

[khalltusk]

You claimed that "back a few hundred million years the suns out put was far less... but the temp was higher than it is now". I'm asking you for evidence that this was true. You need to show that at the same time as the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum, the sun's output was "far less" than it is now. Linking a random article saying there was such a warm period - without saying anything about the sun - is irrelevant garbage.


Who said anything about "non existent"?



It is misleading and dishonest to portray the vast body of evidence we have as "some evidence".



Okay. That's fine.



It is very difficult to look at a factually incorrect statement like "[t]he actual truth is we don't have enough evidence in either debate", without being reminded that it is a very oft-repeated lie. Even if you did not mean to lie, you are regurgitating one of the most common lies from the anti-science lobby.

I posted info about the suns output life cycle its a wiki link but its accurate as can be. I am surprised you don't know about the suns output life cycle. Since it would be a factor in global warming (for instances in roughly 1 billion years time our planet would be too hot to sustain life as we know it) I had to put the link in as an edit as I forgot to put it in there to provide context for the previous link. Hope that helps solve that for you.

[Rukentuts]

I posted info about the suns output life cycle its a wiki link but its accurate as can be. I am surprised you don't know about the suns output life cycle. Since it would be a factor in global warming (for instances in roughly 1 billion years time our planet would be too hot to sustain life as we know it) I had to put the link in as an edit as I forgot to put it in there to provide context for the previous link. Hope that helps solve that for you.

You know NASA has said the sun hasn't had any significant change to output in the last thirty years right? And that no more than 10% of the current warming trend can be attributed to the sun?

[Rodna]

I posted info about the suns output life cycle

Again, irrelevant garbage. You're completely missing the point. You claimed that the sun was much cooler at a time of particular warmth. You hadn't provided any evidence that the sun was actually much cooler then. Saying that in general the sun's output increase over time, doesn't substantiate your claim.

Now in this case tbh I have no idea if it is true or not but I have no reason to either believe it to be true, or to think that it has anything whatsoever to do with what's happening today.

[khalltusk]

Yes as it was on its solar minimum. It is supposed to be coming out of that rather soon and since GPS and other Satalites are a newish feature in our everyday lives there is speculation this could cause issues with our systems that use it due to increase in solar flares and such.

It has a solar cycle like that which is constant but the star gets 10% more luminous every billion years. This and the above are two different things.

---------- Post added 2013-04-08 at 03:10 PM ----------

Again, irrelevant garbage. You're completely missing the point. You claimed that the sun was much cooler at a time of particular warmth. You hadn't provided any evidence that the sun was actually much cooler then. Saying that in general the sun's output increase over time, doesn't substantiate your claim.

Now in this case tbh I have no idea if it is true or not but I have no reason to either believe it to be true, or to think that it has anything whatsoever to do with what's happening today.

Well in your eyes maybe but its not garbage and is infact something that has been observed and is infact a known truth of stellar evolution. I was simply stating that we have had higher temperatures in the past before mankind came into being. So its not the end of the world.

It has some impact on our studies of global warming, the conditions then were warmer than now with less output from the sun so it helps disprove some theories saying its only the sun causing us to heat up.

[Rodna]

Well in your eyes maybe but its not garbage and is infact something that has been observed and is infact a known truth of stellar evolution.

Again... missing the point. I'm not saying the increase in solar output over billions of years is false. I'm saying it doesn't mean 200 millions years ago the son's had "far less" output.

So its not the end of the world.

Nobody said anything about "the end of the world".

[Terridon]

I'm not looking for the "correct answer", my objective is to understand what is the general public's stance on the climate change issue.

Problem with this is that people don't know a damn about it, so you could as well get some monkeys to press on a touch screen, to get equally useful results.
You will most likely see a lot say they think we have no influence, because they haven't followed the subject on an adequate scientifical level, which pretty much proves my point.
I'm going to press "The world will end in fire. Literally", and flee from this thread ^^

[Deleted]

Trollbait post haha. Aren't there already some climate change thread you can discuss in lol.

[khalltusk]

Again... missing the point. I'm not saying the increase in solar output over billions of years is false. I'm saying it doesn't mean 200 millions years ago the son's had "far less" output.


Nobody said anything about "the end of the world".

wait what?

It would have had less output millions of years ago. Thats a given. It increases in luminosity as it burns more and more of its fuel.

[Rukentuts]

wait what?

It would have had less output millions of years ago. Thats a given. It increases in luminosity as it burns more and more of its fuel.

We aren't concerned with millions of years ago. We're concerned with right now. And right now, less than 10% of the current warming trend can be attributed to the sun.

[khalltusk]

We aren't concerned with millions of years ago. We're concerned with right now. And right now, less than 10% of the current warming trend can be attributed to the sun.

Yes and as i explained I just made a statement that we've had high temperatures in the past with less solar output. Scientists struggled to figure out why and thats why they came up with the idea that the early earth probably had more green house gases than it does today. It helps prove the point about green houses gases and a link to global warming. Go figure. The thing is how much of an impact do we make say compared to volcano eruptions? These are things we can't control but there is one thing we can control and should control, which is our own pollution levels. If we reduce those we might be able to make a difference.

[Masark]

A scathing indictment of whichever education system you came from?

Technically correct, but the scale on that graph is horrible. It's way overblowing the variance in solar output, which is about 0.14%.

Also, who the hell mixes customary units and metric ones?

[gamingmuscle]

And again, I like how you only complain about to the only person providing evidence - while ignoring every single anti-science poster who's claims go completely unsubstantiated.

Because their posts didn't peak my interest....stating something that has been generally accepted to be true (valid or not) is boring...stating the opposite peaks my interest and gets a closer look.

I'd tell you to look at the second graph I posted but I know you're more interested in nitpicking than the real facts.

So it is totally true for Europe? Ok. it adds weight when combined with canada and usa graphs.

In which case you're still wrong as my graph shows. But you just keep going on pretending the 2004 data is more meaningful while ignoring the fact that you're citing a source (IPCC 2007) which read: "in 2005, agriculture accounts for 10-12 % of total global anthropogenic emissions of GHGs."

Where did I pretend? I never set out to prove you wrong, nor did I state that you were wrong. I did comment that according to easily accessible data from EPA, agriculture>transportation. I did notice that it was from 2004, I did not read IPCC 2007.

All I did was to call out you're weak evidence as weak, which seems to have offended you. You've backed it up a little better now.

[Naxere]

We aren't concerned with millions of years ago. We're concerned with right now. And right now, less than 10% of the current warming trend can be attributed to the sun.

I wish the warming trend would hit Minnesota. We're supposed to get snow again on Thursday. It was 8 degrees (farenheit) colder on average in March than historical averages.

[oblivionx]

Hey,

I want to know what are you guys' opinion on anthropogenic climate change.
It's been studied that climate change have an effect globally – changes in temperature and precipitation being the main factors. What are the different ways that this will impact communities all over the world?

Thanks!

I'm thinking it's primary effect is causing network news to use the term "extreme weather" so much that it's more common than normal weather.

[Rukentuts]

I wish the warming trend would hit Minnesota. We're supposed to get snow again on Thursday. It was 8 degrees (farenheit) colder on average in March than historical averages.

Heh, I guess we're overdue considering last year's Spring.

[Zallex]

Another "ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING!!!! =[" thread....

just an excuse for the government to tax you even more!

Man made climate change is total bullshit