Meteorologists say sure humans cause climate change

Originally posted by Gools
Here's what irks me about this debate.

I don't believe for a moment that humans can burn over 84 million barrels of oil products per day while having zero effect. The nature and magnitude of those effects are up for debate and research of course, but there has to be some! Thermodynamics says so.

Let's put it in perspective again with the following graph.



Do some research and you will find that the Earth has had much higher CO2 levels in the past during both cold and warm periods. During the middle Ordovician and almost to the end of the Ordovician CO2 levels were around 4,000 ppm to 4,400 ppm, yet temperatures were similar to the present.

There is another example, during the Cretaceous Period, when dinosaurs ruled the world, CO2 levels were 8 times higher than today and temperatures were not higher than today. Yet we are being told that the 0.28% anthropogenic CO2 is "going to change the world and make it like Mars or Venus"...

Originally posted by Gools
Now, there is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing (and I prefer the term climate change rather than 'global warming' since Europe may find itself in a new ice age) and has always been in a state of change.

Yes, the climate has changed and it is changing now, but there is no proof that it is because of human activity.

Originally posted by Gools
The problem I have with the "global warming deniers" (not necessarily including Muaddib here, because I'm not sure what his motives are) is that they seem to be saying humans have no effect whatsoever on the environment and that we can keep burning fossil fuels to our heart's content, polluting our rivers, lakes and oceans and that anybody who says otherwise is a moron.

First of all, my motives are the same as yours, the truth...

Second of all, who in the world has said it is ok to pollute away, dump chemicals to our hearts content, or any of your other claims?....
How many times do I have to keep repeating myself? Meanwhile it is always a good idea to be concious about the environment, "curbing pollution and helping the environment is not going to mitigate or stop Climate Change.

Originally posted by Gools
I agree that this is where we are heading, but I have to ask something. Regardless of the climate change issue, if such measures result in greater efficiency, better technology, less pollution and cleaner air and water, would that really be so bad?

How exactly do you plan of doing all that if all powerplants are at a standstill? Where and how are you going to get power to "create any new technology"?

Originally posted by Gools
If "global warming" scare mongering is what it takes for humans to clean up their act, maybe we should fully support it?

Right, and on the meanwhile how do you plan on producing, and transporting the food and goods, such as medicines, and oil derivatives such as plastic that 6 billion lives depend on?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Muaddib]

What's the source for the above graph?

What's the source of raw data?

Who compiled it?

...Why no link?

Obviously, many factors influence climate - but the key right now is the speed of change - and the lack of commitment to deal with its effects, no matter what the cause.

I think it is from the deforrestation to grow wheat to feed the massive cattle needs of mcdonalds and all the methane they and the mexicans without bathrooms in the fields leave in our pestiside laiden produce.

Originally posted by soficrow
What's the source for the above graph?

What's the source of raw data?

Who compiled it?

...Why no link?

Obviously, many factors influence climate - but the key right now is the speed of change - and the lack of commitment to deal with its effects, no matter what the cause.

Right, I have given before the link but here it is again. You can find the graph in the powerpoint in the second link when you go to the following url.

ff.org...

It is also a very good powerpoint presentation on Climate Change.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by antar
I think it is from the deforrestation to grow wheat to feed the massive cattle needs of mcdonalds and all the methane they and the mexicans without bathrooms in the fields leave in our pestiside laiden produce.

Except for the fact that methane levels are stable and have not increase but appear to be decreasing.

Atmospheric Levels of Methane Stabilizing, NOAA Finds
Pattern of increase stops, but scientists don't know why
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that atmospheric concentrations of
methane, a potent greenhouse gas, have begun to level out after two centuries of increases. In a November 17
press release, NOAA reports that scientists are still trying to determine what this means.

www.gcrio.org...

The above was 4 years ago, but still the levels of methane are not increasing anymore.

In the following link there is a graph on methane levels on Earth for thousands of years. You will also see methane levels were increasing before the onset of mankind.

www.easybreathers.org...

This link is from November 2006.

Methane levels no longer rising, say scientists
Last Updated: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 | 4:08 PM ET
CBC News

Levels of an important greenhouse gas have stopped growing, say U.S. scientists.

Methane levels have stayed nearly flat for the past seven years, following a rise during the two previous decades, according to researchers at the University of California, Irvine.

The findings suggest methane may no longer be as large a global warming threat as previously thought and provide evidence that methane levels can be controlled.

www.cbc.ca...

in the above article it is claimed that "methane levels can be controlled", but they won't tell you that noone has found how or why is it that methane levels stopped increasing for 7 years now.



[edit on 29-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by soficrow
Obviously, many factors influence climate - but the key right now is the speed of change - and the lack of commitment to deal with its effects, no matter what the cause.

BTW, there is nothing strange about the "speed of change". The Earth has had abrupt Climate Changes in the past in less than a decade.

The current changes in temperature started in the 1600s, thats a bit over 400 years and we still haven't seen the tip of the current Climate Change.

BTW, what do you mean by "dealing with it's effects"?

Just because the Ordovician period was not warmer than our current period is not proof that humans aren't responsible for the current warming trend. There are many factors that play a part in global warming, not just CO2. During the mid-Holocene period temperatures were higher than they are today but CO2 was lower. Does that mean that CO2 has no effect on warming? Of course not. It just means there are other factors at play that can add or subract from the warming trend.

Crowley and Baum have shown the low temperatures in the Ordovician ice age may be explained as a result of the proximity of the South Pole to the continental mass which is now a part of Africa. (5) Their analysis confirms that other factors - in this case, the altered geography in the Cretaceous - acting simultaneously with an increase in CO2 can swamp the warming effect of the added CO2. In general, these other factors are not fully understood; in some cases their existence may not be even be suspected. As a consequence, it may be impossible from the record alone to disentangle the temperature response to CO2 changes.

In addition to episodes such as the Ordovician ice age - in which CO2 increased but temperature did not - the climate record also reveals instances in which temperatures increased but CO2 did not. An example is the warmest period of the current interglacial, in the mid-Holocene, ca. 4,000 BCE, when temperatures were 1 - 2° above today's levels, (6) and about the same as the warming predicted by climate models for the end of the 21st century. However, the concentration of CO2 at that time was approximately equal to that of the preindustrial era, i.e., 25% below today's levels. (7)

www.marshall.org...

Currently in this century we are on a warming trend. Now, it seems simple enough to me that if all the variables are in place to cause warming, the last thing we would want to do is add fuel to the fire by dumping in more CO2, but thats what we're doing. For all we know the earth was at an equilibrium before the start of the industrial revolution and our CO2 contribution tipped the scales. Thats certainly what it looks like anyway. In the end, arguing that humans have absolutely no involvement is an argument against simple logic.




[edit on 30-3-2007 by xEphon]

Rising Seas Could Affect 600M, Report Says
Two-Thirds Of World's Largest Cities At Risk Due To Global Warming


i am so fricking tired of all the "Amature " geologists and speculation giver's in this topic.
We are all going to die, probably for the best, the future wouldn't have a chance with our stupid a**es!!

Drop the subject and move on, there are greater things out there for you too discover in the world, (While it's here...snicker..snicker...)
Global Warming is here til she's done. It might not be so bad, if you give credit to .....wait a minute......."It's a sign from God!!!!!!!"........ JK

Blow it out your "Pie Hole" and die look good Humans would....
Here's the story of your conjective thinking... "I think?"

Rising Seas Could Affect 600M, Report Says
Two-Thirds Of World's Largest Cities At Risk Due To Global Warming

www.cbsnews.com...

Originally posted by xEphon
Just because the Ordovician period was not warmer than our current period is not proof that humans aren't responsible for the current warming trend. There are many factors that play a part in global warming, not just CO2.

Either high levels of CO2 causes warming or it doesn't. If the geological record shows that CO2 has been both low and high during both warming and cooling events it shows that CO2 is a cause of Climate Change, not that CO2 causes Climate Change.

Originally posted by xEphon
Currently in this century we are on a warming trend. Now, it seems simple enough to me that if all the variables are in place to cause warming, the last thing we would want to do is add fuel to the fire by dumping in more CO2, but thats what we're doing.

Except for the fact that even in this time period temperatures have been rising first and CO2 levels rose 260 years later. Appart from that I have given links to research that shows that both the Arctic and Antarctic oceans are currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes due to Holocene warming, nothing to do with mankind, which is warming the oceans since the last Ice Age, a warming that started about 12,000 years ago.

Originally posted by xEphon
For all we know the earth was at an equilibrium before the start of the industrial revolution and our CO2 contribution tipped the scales. Thats certainly what it looks like anyway. In the end, arguing that humans have absolutely no involvement is an argument against simple logic.

Actually you are going against "simple logic". If anything, the Earth's geological records have shown us that the one consistency to the Earth's climate is change; not "equilibrium", but change, and in many cases abrupt Climate Changes.

Don't think for one second that you can throw in a catchy phrase such as "it goes against simple logic to think otherwise", when i can come around and use that same "catchy phrase" to prove that you are wrong in your assesment....

"Catchy phrases" don't prove a thing, the evidence does.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Muaddib]

According to 'Science' humans have not been around but (at best) a couple of hundred thousand years...

WHAT caused the numerous previous 'global warmings' (and coolings )... PRIOR to the existance of humans?

Originally posted by golemina
According to 'Science' humans have not been around but (at best) a couple of hundred thousand years...

WHAT caused the numerous previous 'global warmings' (and coolings

)... PRIOR to the existance of humans?

How long have you got

In simple terms a complex, long term, interaction of orbital changes, variations in solar output, continental positions, mountain building, volcanic activity, sea levels, changes in plantlife and probably a few others.

However, humans are currently causing changes in albedo, the extent of tropical rainforests, building big cities and causing changes to the type and extent of cloud cover, all of which affect climate on a smaller scale. And for humans, it's the smaller scale that matters - it tends to be droughts, floods, hurricanes etc that cause us problems, not ice ages or hothouses.

In addition, due to human activity, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are currently rising faster and to a higher levels than at any time in modern geological time - carbon may have lagged temp before, but at the present it is leading the way. Whether temp is following purely or primarily as a result of such carbon increase is of course another matter But if, as some seem to think, CO2 is not a 'greenhouse gas' after all and has nothing to do with global warming, then human activities will still be causing climate change.

Oh, and I shouldn't rule out other natural factors getting in on the act too, although whilst the deniers and the catastrophists are at loggerheads I doubt we'll get any clear answers as to what the various contributions of human and natural factors are and how they interact with one another. Who knows, maybe they'll even balance each other out?

Im not throwing around "catchy phrases" thank you sir.
Your being overly simplistic by aruging that CO2 either causes or doesnt cause climate change. I already showed that CO2 is part of a larger equation that affects climate change, and that it obviously isnt the sole factor involved in it.

First of all. Im not an extremist like many others who think that humans are the sole cause of climate change. So take that lens off before you read what I have to say.
Yes the earth has always been changing. I use the term equilibrim to reference a point without human input.
Your correct in that this century has been in a warming trend before it started, but your assumption is that since we are already in a period of warming, than our contribution to this is irrelevant. I dont see how one could argue that.

The biggest contributor to warming is methane, to which we are a huge contributor. Deforestation being replaced with livestock doesnt help either. Since temperatures lag being CO2 and methane lags behind temperature, what we are currently seeing is probably just the effect of an already warming climate, but that doesnt mean we can ignore the long term when our input of CO2 and methane may have a more dramatic effect. This positive feedback during a natural warming period can have some ungood effects on us. I guess we'll just have to see.

cheers

You ARE admitting that there have been LOTS of 'warmings' (and 'coolings') long before 'man' was on the scene...

Good... And see it wasn't that hard to admit the GLARING defect in the BS that surrounds the current mass mania.

Now, if only we could get all of you save the planet types...



To start living the WAY you actually preach.

Stop driving your SUV.
Stop eating animal flesh.
Stop using animal corpse products.
Stop using oil based products.
Stop using wood based products.
Stop using electricity.

Oh wait... There goes the SUM TOTAL of modern life.

And oh what a bunch of HYPOCRITES.

Kind of ironic, don't you think...

That the only thing the 'global warming' true believers ACTUALLY do in an effort to REALLY address the problem...

Is basically running around in circles shreiking... 'Global warming! Global warming! Global warming!'

Well if stopped using soya and palm oil based products it'd be a start

I don't drive or fly anyway and I fail to see how not eating meat will make any difference.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Essan]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Prepare is the only thing anyone can do. You can't order or control 6 billion people, and if you wait for any government to make preparations for you, the same thing that happened during Katrina will happen again, nomatter how prepared any state or government is. You can't fight nature.

That were some great points and suggestions!

I also share the same opinion with those points - because sooner or later something is going to happen, which shall change the way we live for a long, long time. And you are so right - We just can not fight Nature...

What makes you think there is anything man can do to mitigate, control or stop Climate Change?

So here we are again - well if you are so prepared and if you honestly think that we simply can not have any effect to reduce or stop climate change, why is it so important to you to prove that this change is NOT man made? Why does it matter anyway in the first place? You know what - you sound like the devils advocate for oil companies, automotive industry, military industry and any other polluters out there.

Because honestly I just do NOT belive that global climate change is something which just "happens" - I think the human race has severly damaged our planet in many ways possible, and soon it will be payback time...

The consciously responsible are talking about mitigating the effects of climate change.

mitigate:

lessen something: to make something less harsh, severe, or violent

A reasonable goal - and entirely doable.

Yeah... wear a coat or invest in sunscreen.

We're predicting a record low of 19degF on Easter here in Kansas City, MO.

I'm expecting widespread rolling blackouts this summer from A/C overloading the grid.