Further Evidence of Human Induced Global Warming

Hello to everyone, there is divided opinion among us, whether the global warming we are currently seeing is a part of the nautral cycle or as the result of human activities over the decades of industrial growth.

Well, there is a article on scientific american that has overwhelming and convincing evidence that the root cause is human induced.

Back in 1998, for example, Hansen was arguing that the human impact on climate was unquestionable, even as other leading climate scientists continued to question it. He was subsequently proved right, not only about the human influence but about the approximate pace of future temperature rise. But just as in 1998, the underlying motivation for his claims, if not all of his conclusions, is shared pretty much universally.

And the mechanism of the global warming is,

The basic proposition behind the science of climate change is so firmly rooted in the laws of physics that no reasonable person can dispute it. All other things being equal, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere—by, for example, burning millions of tons of oil, coal and natural gas—will make it warm up. That, as the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first explained in 1896, is because CO2 is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun, which heats the planet during the day. But it is relatively opaque to infrared, which the earth tries to reradiate back into space at night. If the planet were a featureless, monochromatic billiard ball without mountains, oceans, vegetation and polar ice caps, a steadily rising concentration of CO2 would mean a steadily warming earth.

The current deadly consequences expected,

The most recent major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 projects a temperature rise of three degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees—enough to trigger serious impacts on human life from rising sea level, widespread drought, changes in weather patterns, and the like.

Here's climatologist James Hanson's assertion,

But according to Hansen and his nine co-authors, who have submitted their paper to Open Atmospheric Science Journal, the correct figure is closer to six degrees C. “That’s the equilibrium level,” he says. “We won’t get there for a while. But that’s where we’re aiming.” And although the full impact of this temperature increase will not be felt until the end of this century or even later, Hansen says, the point at which major climate disruption is inevitable is already upon us. “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted,” the paper states, “CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm [parts per million] to at most 350 ppm.” The situation, he says, “is much more sensitive than we had implicitly been assuming.”

Here's the link to the article,

www.sciam.com...

[edit on 7/10/08 by peacejet]

And here we have more evidence that the cause is anthropogenic. But i doubt those that refuse to see the evidence will suddenly change their mind with this. Still, can never hurt to see just how much we're screwing up the planet.

Glad to see that you have understood the purpose of my post, as you say we hve screwed up the tiny atmosphere of our planet, and if we dont act fast we have to face the dire consequences, and we are out of time we are crossing the point of no return in about eight years from now and after that we dont have a single chance to stop the rapid warming, let alone reverse it.

Many dont understand that it will be the our future generations suffering the consequences.

I don't think anyone argues that we are contributing to the rising CO2 levels, I think the real debate is to what extent we are contributing. I have never seen a study that shows accurately our percentage of influence in the overall scheme of things. My question is, even if we halted all CO2 producing factors by humans completely today, would we be avoiding a climate crisis? Or are other factors such as the Sun making this an eventuality irregardless of our activities.

I think its ridiculous for people to doubt that Humanity are adding to the Global warming problem, which they are, on a large scale but not as large a scale as our governments and institutions in the EU are making out.
The evidence that other planets in our solar system are heating up, that the Sun is changing and even that Earth's average temperature is falling are also compelling.

The main problem with Global warming is that it is now a 50 billion euro a year Industry (Co2 emission caps), and when it comes to profit.. where do the lies end and the facts begin??

Originally posted by djcloudy
My question is, even if we halted all CO2 producing factors by humans completely today, would we be avoiding a climate crisis? Or are other factors such as the Sun making this an eventuality irregardless of our activities.

I accept your opinoin that the sun has a effect on the climate, and as the sun ages, it will heat up the earth, and this co2 emission into the atmosphere will only compound that problem, by trapping the solar radiation, as you can see in the article, it is opaque to the radiation trying to escape out.

Originally posted by Dermo
even that Earth's average temperature is falling are also compelling.

The earths average temperature is increasing and a three degree change is expected, and can you deny the fact that though some regions have cooler days, that there are stronger than before hurricanes and lot more of them, and the arctic ice melted enough to pass to the other side, this overrides your opinion regarding the cooling.

Originally posted by peacejet

The earths average temperature is increasing and a three degree change is expected

Just some small examples of the contrary.

Click
Click
Click
Click


As i said before, Global warming is now an Industry. Who are you to believe and how much?

The increasing power of hurricanes is irrelevant. This happens and has been happening for the last few hundred million years.

Mankinds help in helping the global warming problem is evident. Just look out your window and see the blemish's our cities make on the world.


BUT believing everything you read from scientists is like believing adverts on tv. All scientists are on a payrole. The answer depends on the payrole.

Originally posted by Dermo
BUT believing everything you read from scientists is like believing adverts on tv. All scientists are on a payrole. The answer depends on the payrole.

And also the scientists who produced the findings, you are saying are also on a payrole, what if this contrary findings were done on purpose, to hide the evidence of global warming.

Originally posted by peacejet

Originally posted by Dermo
BUT believing everything you read from scientists is like believing adverts on tv. All scientists are on a payrole. The answer depends on the payrole.

And also the scientists who produced the findings, you are saying are also on a payrole, what if this contrary findings were done on purpose, to hide the evidence of global warming.

Thats kind of what i meant.

When it comes to global warming and the destruction of the environment, all we can do is try to cut down on your carbon footprint. Not listen to bull# claims from governments that are only looking to screw you for everything from carbon emissions taxes to recycling taxes in order to supplement the national income.

My main point is.. because Global warming is now such a big industry and there are corporations making billions from it.. there is as much of a reason for them to blow it out of proportion as there is for other industries to try cover it up.