Atmospheric methane
Atmospheric methane - Wikipedia
Methane has about 30 times more global warming potential than CO2. The US, for example, produces about 9 times more CO2 emissions than methane...but this still leaves methane emissions being about 3 times as big a problem as CO2.
So by this data, reducing methane is far more important than reducing fossil fuel burning. Note that some of this methane (I don't know what % yet) is emitted by fossil fuel processing but it is also created by livestock farming.
In practical terms, reducing your own fuel consumption is hard and expensive (eg: home insulation) but reducing your intake of animal produce isn't so hard. And I am speaking as someone who loves a good steak.
Atmospheric methane - Wikipedia
Methane has about 30 times more global warming potential than CO2. The US, for example, produces about 9 times more CO2 emissions than methane...but this still leaves methane emissions being about 3 times as big a problem as CO2.
So by this data, reducing methane is far more important than reducing fossil fuel burning. Note that some of this methane (I don't know what % yet) is emitted by fossil fuel processing but it is also created by livestock farming.
In practical terms, reducing your own fuel consumption is hard and expensive (eg: home insulation) but reducing your intake of animal produce isn't so hard. And I am speaking as someone who loves a good steak.
Attachments
Last edited:
95% of statistics are made up on the spot
.If we reduce livestock farming, it's possible we'll need to use more fossil fuel to make some of the areas presently given over to livestock productive.
Yes: reducing your animal product consumption is more effective than reducing your fossil fuel consumption.
Regarding sea levels and glaciation, we all know that in millennia gone by the environment has had far bigger extremes than we are discussing here. But so what?
To take the threat of man-made global warming/climate change seriously a couple of assumptions have to be shown to be beyond reasonable doubt:
1. Man-made green house gas emissions will cause higher global temperatures.
2. These higher global temperatures will cause serious problems for people.
Last edited:
Traderbam, there are scientists that have stated the models are inconclusive. Scientists have made alarming claims without peer reviews or concensus. I have seen debates with climate specialists and i have no idea what they are talking about, but both are passionate and claim to be right. When I read statemnts like this i think, how do you know when the scientists cant agree?
Human caused climate change is the topic...
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Air pollution in African cities is killing young children — Quartz Africa
Europe is divided into safe and dangerous places to breathe — Quartz
Air pollution in America - U.S. cities with the worst air pollution - Pictures - CBS News
I could go on and on searching for online articles stating the bleeding obvious, If some of the naysayers and disbelievers on this forum were to live in some of the highly (HUMAN MADE)polluted areas of the world, they would have a different view.. but I guess out of sight ..out of mind..
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Air pollution in African cities is killing young children — Quartz Africa
Europe is divided into safe and dangerous places to breathe — Quartz
Air pollution in America - U.S. cities with the worst air pollution - Pictures - CBS News
I could go on and on searching for online articles stating the bleeding obvious, If some of the naysayers and disbelievers on this forum were to live in some of the highly (HUMAN MADE)polluted areas of the world, they would have a different view.. but I guess out of sight ..out of mind..
Notice such terms as these used frequently in the www directly below. typically/unlikely/may/guess/likely/tendency/expected/estimate/believe/uncertainties/
*
What they don't tell you is, the weather stations etc they Omit from their data & also tampering etc, because it contradicts their findings & would affect the results !
See here
*
What they don't tell you is, the weather stations etc they Omit from their data & also tampering etc, because it contradicts their findings & would affect the results !
See here
i wonder who made this pollution... rabbits? dogs? slugs?
Time Lapse Beijing Smog City In Air Pollution Stock Footage Video | Getty Images
oh thats right.. humans
Time Lapse Beijing Smog City In Air Pollution Stock Footage Video | Getty Images
oh thats right.. humans
I don't know if he does but there is always money trail. As the old saying goes, when in doubt, follow the money. It leads to the culprit.
Very good question.
There is a whole policy area devoted to such dilemmas under the banner "precautionary principle" which is itself subject to disagreement. It concerns taking (or not taking) action to avoid risks of a certain size. But who determines the size and how to measure it?
What is the indicator that human activities are dangerously (to humans) impacting the environment so much that we need to make changes, and make changes of what magnitude? Experts probably don't agree on this indicator either.
Everyone will agree once a serious outcome occurs. Once that huge meteorite is spotted and its course is plotted to impact Washington DC then serious action will be taken. If it is too late then c'est la vie.
Climate change is like long-range weather forecasting and none of us trust that from experience. So it's a hard sell.
In the end you have to make your own judgment. Taking precautions is smart anyhow if they don't cost you too much.
Last edited:
What are the things humans can do to slow down or stop making global temperature to go up or down more? Also, why would you say "worse"?
That link's title says, "Understanding Global Warming Potentials". Besides, it doesn't cover the effects of water vapor.
Do you have links that says something more definitive such as "Understanding Global Warming Facts"?
Some seem so disappointed that their "evidence" is not being rebutted on an individual level. The reason is that it's frustrating to do so for those who have actually gone through and made an effort to understand the science, and pointless because your minds can't be changed anyway. You and your Facebook friends are all the support you need.
Whatever you post, you can be sure that it's already made this list:
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
25 "Sea level rise is exaggerated" A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
How much is sea level rising?
51 "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
Did global warming stop in <strike>1998</strike>, <strike>1995</strike>, <strike>2002</strike>, <strike>2007</strike>, 2010?
79 "It's methane" Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.
What is methane's contribution to global warming?
90 "They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'"
'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.
Global warming vs climate change
105 "Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995" Phil Jones was misquoted.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm
126 "Sea level is not rising"
The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-not-rising.htm
121 "Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming"
Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm
158 "Deniers are part of the 97%"
If anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/deniers-are-part-of-97-percent.htm
Whatever you post, you can be sure that it's already made this list:
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
25 "Sea level rise is exaggerated" A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.
How much is sea level rising?
51 "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
Did global warming stop in <strike>1998</strike>, <strike>1995</strike>, <strike>2002</strike>, <strike>2007</strike>, 2010?
79 "It's methane" Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.
What is methane's contribution to global warming?
90 "They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'"
'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.
Global warming vs climate change
105 "Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995" Phil Jones was misquoted.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm
126 "Sea level is not rising"
The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-not-rising.htm
121 "Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming"
Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm
158 "Deniers are part of the 97%"
If anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/deniers-are-part-of-97-percent.htm
Looks like the bold part. How does one know? If the info doesn't fit, they get bored.
Leadbelly, thanks for at least making an attempt. Kudos to you for that. We're seeing the same gamut of tropes and fallacies play out here as everywhere else. As I said, it's saddening to see.
The other aspect that isn't quite touched is that the least common denominator (ahem, mainstream, not even getting into the ideologically motivated/heavily slanted) media types are overly eager to report with "false equivalence" because it makes the story sound much more interesting (and tenable to write) than "we interviewed 100 climate scientists and 97 of them said basically the same thing while 3 disagreed with the overwhelming consensus." This happens just as badly in medicine, where I have a little more intimate knowledge of what's going on, and the whole of mainstream media's response to anything close to science is cringeworthy. I have to assume the reporting in worlds outside my knowledge base are as bad as the ones in my domain.
The other aspect that isn't quite touched is that the least common denominator (ahem, mainstream, not even getting into the ideologically motivated/heavily slanted) media types are overly eager to report with "false equivalence" because it makes the story sound much more interesting (and tenable to write) than "we interviewed 100 climate scientists and 97 of them said basically the same thing while 3 disagreed with the overwhelming consensus." This happens just as badly in medicine, where I have a little more intimate knowledge of what's going on, and the whole of mainstream media's response to anything close to science is cringeworthy. I have to assume the reporting in worlds outside my knowledge base are as bad as the ones in my domain.
following the money trail is right on.
I don't want to get slapped for being political here, because I'm not.
if we put the effort made to create newcoolear war or a space-race, or F-35's towards creating hydrogen from solar energy, well, those who are padding their stock portfolios fat on dirty fuel have an interest in keeping things that way.
There are those who believe they are creating hydrogen in a efficient manner to supplement their gas / diesel burning vehicles - they are not seeing a real gain but it is possible. We as a race just need to put our Oppenheimer / Einstein minds to it. But if the greedy are getting FAT on something simple, there is no need to change it. They probably are not outdoors enough or been to where they must wear a P100 respirator all of the time.
I gotta unsubscribe,
Cheers to most! And hope the rest of us can get along.
I don't want to get slapped for being political here, because I'm not.
if we put the effort made to create newcoolear war or a space-race, or F-35's towards creating hydrogen from solar energy, well, those who are padding their stock portfolios fat on dirty fuel have an interest in keeping things that way.
There are those who believe they are creating hydrogen in a efficient manner to supplement their gas / diesel burning vehicles - they are not seeing a real gain but it is possible. We as a race just need to put our Oppenheimer / Einstein minds to it. But if the greedy are getting FAT on something simple, there is no need to change it. They probably are not outdoors enough or been to where they must wear a P100 respirator all of the time.
I gotta unsubscribe,
Cheers to most! And hope the rest of us can get along.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.