A simple climate change question

Which has more effect on the climate of the planet earth changing?


  • Total voters
    57

Solver

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 6, 2004
999
2,829
USA
There are many things that can affect the climate of the planet earth changing, but let’s just simplify it down to three basic choices and see the results.

Mankind:
The human race.

Nature:
The material world and its phenomena.
The forces and processes that produce and control these phenomena.

Something else:
God(s), spirits, the unnatural, the supernatural, etc.
 
Last edited:

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,440
10,395
There are many things that can affect the climate of the planet earth changing, but let’s just simplify it down to three basic choices and see the results.
Simplifying it down to 3 basic choices is absolutely asanine as it fails to take into account thousands of different variables on how the earth works.

However, if we are reffering to specific modern global temperatures increases, we have strong evidence that a lot of the temperature increase is directly related to the carbon green house affect.

Carbon we have directly put into the atmosphere through the burning of chemicals that contain trapped carbon deposits. Namely, Oil and Gas.
https://climatechange.lta.org/wp-content/uploads/cct/2015/02/EPA-climate-forcing-2014.pdf


Can nature produce carbon like this? Possibly. But we've seen no events through nature that can emit the levels of carbon we are seeing in the atmosphere today. (Such events could be via Valcanic forces, or other natural occuring events)

so, because we cannot find evidence of any natural cause for the carbon increases in our atmosphere, the simple answer is. it's us. All of us. And our current lifestyles of burning things to produce stuff
 

VictorTango777

macrumors 6502
Oct 28, 2017
409
445
Any attempt to implicate mankind in causing global warming is a non-starter for certain groups of people or industries because it would mean having to admit responsibility. Better questions include:

Have global temperatures been rising over the past century? See "boiling frog" and "going down the up escalator" analogies.

Are rising temperatures causing problems for human life, animal life, and the environment?

Can/should we do something to combat rising temperatures?
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,440
10,395
Any attempt to implicate mankind in causing temperature rise is a non-starter for certain groups of people or industries because it would mean having to admit responsibility. Better questions include:

Have global temperatures been rising over the past century? See "boiling frog" and "going down the up escalator" analogies.

Are rising temperatures causing problems for human and animal life?

Can/should we do something to combat rising temperatures?
I think your questions can be fairly answered with... Yes.

for example, here in Ontario, we are seeing more and more wet and rainy springs year after year. this makes sense given the changes in climate and how they affect pressure patterns. We've hit a point where there's so much rain so unusual at this time, that crops can't even be planted yet that should have been planted months ago (the fields are literaly mud).

climate change might not mean the world turns into a desert. But it's going to mean that the world is going to change in ways we can't necessarily predict accurately. it's going to displace millions (if not billions). it's going to affect insurance companies and their premiums or payouts. governments will have to adjust to vast migrations of people.

lets take a second and just even entertain that it's not mankind causing this. Even if this change were 100% natural, it si going to cost the world billions in effects. We can either start planning now for those, or, we can wait till we have millions of people on our doorsteps without a home because it's now 100ft under water
 
  • Like
Reactions: mudslag

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,044
Criminal Mexi Midget
Any attempt to implicate mankind in causing global warming is a non-starter for certain groups of people or industries because it would mean having to admit responsibility. Better questions include:

Have global temperatures been rising over the past century? See "boiling frog" and "going down the up escalator" analogies.

Are rising temperatures causing problems for human life, animal life, and the environment?

Can/should we do something to combat rising temperatures?
happy to look at alternatives that are NOT taxed......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple OC and Solver

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,440
10,395
happy to look at alternatives that are NOT taxed......
All alternatives that have been come up with have also been routinely rejected by the same people who say "no" to taxes

at some point, you have to shut up and put up. you can't say no to everything and hope some magical fairy will wave his arms and solve our problems.

Cap and Trade? Rejected
Gas Tax? Rejected
Banning carbon producers? Rejected.

your arguments against a tax ring hollow when you also refuse to do anything at all. it just comes accross as you don't care and refuse to help with the problem.

so even if you're not a denier of climate change. you are just as bad.
 

VictorTango777

macrumors 6502
Oct 28, 2017
409
445
One person burning a lump of coal or a quart of oil has not destroyed the earth. Therefore, billions of people continuously burning billions of tons of coal and oil should not be a problem either.

I'll be dead before the worst effects of climate change start to appear, so it's not my problem. Meanwhile, I continue hoarding money so I can live in air conditioned white castles. Too bad for everyone else.

We'll all be moving to Mars, so just keep doing what we're doing.

Earth has been around for billions of years, so has Venus.
 
Last edited:

Cave Man

macrumors 604
There are many things that can affect the climate of the planet earth changing, but let’s just simplify it down to three basic choices and see the results.
This is an intellectually anemic post. You completely ignored the issue, which is the rapid rate of rising global temperatures that is causing rapid climate change. That is the issue. There is no natural explanation to account for the rapidity of these changes. The only explanation is the release of sequestered gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane, that trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/temperature-is-rising
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jensend and sean000

VictorTango777

macrumors 6502
Oct 28, 2017
409
445
I recently bought a pound of ground turkey and imagined a time when protein like this is grown in a lab and is available in the grocery. It’s very doable, in fact they have already grown beef in the lab.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat

Maybe this will reduce the desire to chop down the entire Amazon rain forest just for cow grazing. By the way, is the Amazon rain forest just a local problem?

Or having meat processing plants surrounded by giant lakes of raw animal sewage, when the land could be used for other purposes. Not my back yard, so not my problem?
 

Apple OC

macrumors 68040
Oct 14, 2010
3,579
2,087
Hogtown
  • Like
Reactions: Ulenspiegel

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,164
IOKWARDI
What is lost here is that humans thrive in a very narrow band of conditions. It does not take a whole lot to render the global system unsuitable for us to live in. Venus and Mars are extreme examples of places we would not be able to live, but this planet is quite finely balanced for our survival, and we are messing dangerously with that balance.
 

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,855
6,018
New Hampshire, USA
There are many things that can affect the climate of the planet earth changing, but let’s just simplify it down to three basic choices and see the results.

Mankind:
The human race.

Nature:
The material world and its phenomena.
The forces and processes that produce and control these phenomena.

Something else:
God(s), spirits, the unnatural, the supernatural, etc.
I'm not sure it's a simple question since that is one of the main points that people are arguing over.

In any case, we were told that we will know for sure in 12 years when civilization ends.
 

DanielDD

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2013
458
1,771
Portugal
The question is bad. We shouldn't be discussing the contributions of "nature" and "mankind" to climate change. Climate is a "system in which all competing influences are balanced". Thus, we should be discussing how humans disrupt the natural equilibrium.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,089
16,611
The Misty Mountains
Maybe this will reduce the desire to chop down the entire Amazon rain forest just for cow grazing. By the way, is the Amazon rain forest just a local problem?

Or having meat processing plants surrounded by giant lakes of raw animal sewage, when the land could be used for other purposes. Not my back yard, so not my problem?
No, and for the second question, for some people, yes. What is evident and annoying is when people make fun of the cow problem- the arrogance of ignorance. We could very likely be in our march to extinction, or just serious devastation. Hyperbole?

Is rejection of new threats, upending the mental status quo, built into some people’s DNA, mostly conservatives? I really can’t see this as a characteristic of the species that promotes self preservation. Maybe we have gotten a little too cushy in the modern age.

And it’s not only cow farts, it is millions of acres that used to be carbon sinks, excellerating global warming, cleared to raise these animals, although in the US ranching is mostly dead, and our beef meat production cones from much smaller cattle yards, that are still the equivalent of superfund sites, and the resources are still needed to produce this beef. :(

Cow farts are an even bigger problem than we thought
https://www.popsci.com/cow-farts-are-an-even-bigger-problem-than-we-thought/

Climate change just isn't that funny. Cow belches, conversely, are hilarious. It's the rare issue that's seriously impactful and giggle-inducing—bovine flatulence is a precious, smelly diamond in the climate change rough. And it turns out to be an even bigger problem than we thought.

A new estimate of the global methane emissions from cow mouths and butts is 11 percent higher than previous stats suggested. The study was funded by NASA's Carbon Monitoring System program, and published in the journal Carbon Balance and Management. Fortunately, it seems that the U.S. estimates are still on track. It was mainly the global numbers that varied.

That may seem like a tiny amount to be off by, but the dose makes the poison—and boy is there a lot of poison billowing into our atmosphere. This updated estimate says that livestock pushed about 119.1 million tons of methane into the air in 2011 alone. Carbon dioxide emissions are far greater in terms of volume, but because methane captures more of the sun's energy, it's actually a more potent greenhouse gas. And underestimating emissions means we also underestimate how much we need to do to combat climate change.

Food Choices and the Planet
http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm
  • It takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef
  • Because of over-consumption of fish, all 17 of the world’s major fishing areas have reached or exceeded their natural limits. One-third of the world’s fish catch is fed directly to livestock.
  • 70% of US grain production is fed to livestock.
  • 5 million acres of rainforest are felled every year in South and Central America alone to create cattle pasture.
  • Roughly 20% of all currently threatened and endangered species in the US are harmed by livestock grazing.
  • Animal agriculture is a chief contributor to water pollution. America’s farm animals produce 10 times the waste produced by the human population.
[doublepost=1561207341][/doublepost]
I've never eaten a turkey burger in my life... when they kill off all the cows to save the planet, I might try a turkey burger then.
My purchase of ground turkey was for spaghetti sauce. We have several recipes that call for ground beef, and not only is using ground turkey not a sacrifice, but both me and my wife swear the end product tastes better. I agree though that beef hamburgers taste better than turkey. :)
 
Last edited:

Cave Man

macrumors 604
Nature.
-Sun activity
-Huge meteors impacting the planet.

All of these have more impact on the climate than humans.
Like belief in fairies, ghosts and werewolves, your position has no scientific evidence to support it.

Neither of these can explain the graph below - only human activities that lead to accumulation of greenhouse gases do.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,030
PDX
There was a generation that couldn't understand how to program VCRs. Another emails. Most of us are not Climatology experts. That's why there is Science (with scientists). The fact that a certain % of the population distrusts Scientists (and teachers) should, if not tell you we're doomed, at least point out our questions are flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sean000

villicodelirant

Suspended
Aug 3, 2011
396
681
There was a generation that couldn't understand how to program VCRs. Another emails. Most of us are not Climatology experts. That's why there is Science (with scientists). The fact that a certain % of the population distrusts Scientists (and teachers) should, if not tell you we're doomed, at least point out our questions are flawed.
I'm not following, but let me quip that it's entirely okay to distrust teachers.
That's the one thing I always tried to get into my kids' heads when I was a teacher.
Don't trust me, redo the calculations yourselves.
Get the spring balance out and redo the measurements.
Re-check the proof of the theorem you're using.
Maybe I ****ed up and you did deserve an A.
I do **** up a lot.

That's what science is all about, not "trusting scientists" - much less trusting the media reporting about science, since they are completely clueless.
If people "trusted" Andrew Wakefield we would be in a dire situation.
No, different people tried to replicate the studies. Quite a few times. And things didn't check out.

Available evidence and reasoning, independently replicated by everyone and his dog at this point, appears to point to the fact that climate change is real, dangerous, and at least partly anthropogenic.
That might be a load of crap: at some point everyone believed that the atom was inseparable.

But put your money somewhere, by God.
Either you find the flaws, or accept the best theory we have.

We haven't ruled out that gravity acts differently for people named Peter - maybe if you're a Peter you can walk off a high building and not fall down.
Seems insane? Yeah, that's how Lord Kelvin would have felt if you told him that the atom could be split.
Still, how do you like your chances, Peter? Wanna try?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: raqball

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,089
16,611
The Misty Mountains
I'm not following, but let me quip that it's entirely okay to distrust teachers.
That's the one thing I always tried to get into my kids' heads when I was a teacher.
Don't trust me, redo the calculations yourselves.
Get the spring balance out and redo the measurements.
Re-check the proof of the theorem you're using.
Maybe I ****ed up and you did deserve an A.

That's what science is all about, not "trusting scientists" - much less trusting the media reporting about science, since they are completely clueless.
If people "trusted" Andrew Wakefield we would be in a dire situation.
No, different people tried to replicate the studies. Quite a few times. And things didn't check out.
The ignorant people (not said as an insult) who distrust science, if I am not making a flawed generalization, don’t like to have their status quo disrupted, or think it’s a misguided liberal plot, or one designed to to **** with them.

It’s the reaction that is most troubling, an unwillingness to accept scientifically based evidence. Overwhelmingly science supports the basics of global warming, while the Right scurries to locate a couple of naysayers to support their position based on not wanting to face facts.

Here is the kicker, if it is reasonably suspected as a major issue threatening us, why not act on it prudently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: realtuner