Man can effect global climate.

news.yahoo.com...
Of course every one here Knows man can NOT possibly effect earths climate.
Humans are fools don't want to except what they do Can and will cause earth changes that effects the planet.
Does it make you feel better saying ooo but its not my fault that china is a ses pool?
But ooo you and I are Just as responsible as china for this mess our worlds getting into You and I are just as responsible for the gulf oil spill ,exon valdies ,The garbage patch in the ocean ,The plants and animals that are becoming extinct at 100 types a day the nuk power plants that are leaking and melting down,The coal and oil power plants that poluit our water here in the us that no fish live in for the last 30 years.
The earth warming or cooling No way we can effect that.Well unless your in china under a cloud of poison air.
Nope not your fault its not like you buy china's cheep plastic they sell at walleworld.Its not like if you and I stopped buying there cheep stuff they would have to clean up there act.
Nope its not your fault oil rigs blow up .But better keep my gas under 3 $ or else.
Yea head in the sand syndrome. You see The difference between us Is I know its as much my fault im helping kill the planet just like you .
Its getting cold again here in the states tonight every ones going to be turning on there heaters .
But no way this effects the climate no way your responsible for the smog over your city and no way this effects the temperature or weather in anyway why its all the suns fault.
You know what when we finally do kill our selfs off in a million years earth may try again maybe the next so called intelligent life form will acutely be intelligent .
well off to the next its Obomas fault thread.

Yes and they've (WHO--World Health Organization) recently said that simply breathing air is a major cause of cancer in the world thanks to all the pollutants.

reply to post by midnightstar


Are we affecting the climate of the other planets in the solar system as well or do you think it might be the common denominator like oh I don't know, the star that all the planets revolve around?

If the blame humans for global warming crowd were truly serious they would stop exhaling a green house gas and save the Earth until that happens I don't take your concern or your argument seriously.

reply to post by midnightstar


no stress please! thats what THEY want U to be in....! here is something for you to relax....

reply to post by Carreau


Whoops! You aren't supposed to mention the temperature rising on all the planets. You can only use their data that has been proven faulty and incorrect many times over.

Of course the man has no effect on the planet.. its a lie by the pharmaceutical company who is in cahoots with chem trailers to take you money and freedom so the terrorists win.



In the world of reality, Men do effect the climate and the earth.

reply to post by Carreau


To be honest, there is no patten among all solar system planets climate change, as there nearly no long-term data, as we have from Earth´s, and we have no real understanding of the climate systems working in different solar system planets.

A year in Jupiter lasts 11,9 Earth years, Saturns year lasts 29,7 years, a year on Uranus lasts over 84,3 Earth years, while a year on Neptune lasts 164,8 Earth years. As you can see, no real climate change has never been observed on any of these planets. Considering that space observations have only been possible in the recent century, we have seen a maximum of 10 years on any of these planets. Currently the best we can do is simply predictions based on observation, although due to not having any long-term data on the seasonal and regional changes, no full understanding of the climate systems there (at the end their systems are very different from how it is on Earth) + there might be a lot of other variables which might affect the planetary climate systems, it is a mere prediction without substantial evidence. We can only state it might be warming/cooling somewhere, but not state for a fact a climate change is happening there due to not having enough data. Uranus is predicted to be cooling for example. Neptune is warming as summer is coming, which last happened over 100 years ago.

It is a fact that Earth´s climate is warming, there substantial evidence for it considering long-term climate trends. Yes, there have climate changes even before, although these have happened for a reason. During the 1900s, the earth has been quite stable, there have been no significant natural effects that could affect climate change, after the 1950s Sun has been cooling, while Earth has continued warming.

It is absurdity thinking man can not affect the climate at all. Considering the human civilization in the last centuries, it can have significant effects on the eco-system, whether by pollution, deforestation or some other reasons. It is all about natural balance, but we have shifted the balance a lot by exploiting resources, taking forests down. Definitely this can affect Earth´s climate up to some point and that is the logical conclusion that could be made, especially considering the fact that Sun is cooling and the climate change has been one of the fastest ever happened on Earth without any clear reason.

I am no climate scientist, but I would rather believe the overall consensus of majority of climate scientists from every country in the world, than believe the lobby and marketing work from different oil companies, who at the end do not care about anything else than financial benefits, whatever the consequences might be like, e.g. Mexican Gulf Oil Spill.

Just wondering OP, no offense meant, is this supposed to be a rant?

A sarcastic lambasting of ATS readers?

If so, for the most part, you kind of preaching to the choir here.

Just wondering.

Yes, the Earth is warming up.

But here's the inconvenient truth...

We don't know why.

To say it's down to human activity, or "over 50%" is down to humans, is the merest speculation.

Science - as I have come to understand it - advances theories which only become fact when they are proven by repeatable experiments.

We don't have that here.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Although you have to agree that humans play certain role in climate change,right ? I agree though that the % is arguable

Although considering the potential consequences of long-term climate change even if there was 1-5% chance that environmental policies could affect long-term change for the better, I believe the wisest decision would be at least trying, rather than leaving all the issues to the next generations while driving your Hummer for every, even short trip, you make. Time can not be turned back and as long as there is no 100% proof on either ends, actions should be taken rather than deciding for short-term pleasure on the expense of future generations. Profits will be smaller, but what matter more?

reply to post by midnightstar


Well, if you are convinced that human activity is the cause for global warming, then the solution is pretty clear. Stop doing whatever it is we're doing that is causing global warming.

I assume you would agree that simply taxing people and continuing to do whatever we're doing is no solution.

reply to post by midnightstar


I agree! I've stopped eating beans for the greater glory of Druidism errr mother earth supporters.

Hello? No one said we couldn't effect the climate. Just that no where near what nature itself can and does.

That includes cleaning it up and rebalancing it.

Pollution aside, we are on the bottom of the list in affecting climate change.... as the latest U.N. report suggests.

We're polluting the planet. That I agree with. CO2 as a pollutant? That I disagree with. Theres plenty of environmental issues I support. This moronic doomsday climate change hysteria that can be trailed back to Gunther Schwab, a loving nazi eugenicist, is just absurd.

How many predictions have to fail and how many lies have to be exposed before people realise this is a massive contrivance perpetuated by obscene funding and well meaning bleeding heart morons?

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


Considering we live in a materialistic world, taxation is something that can influence the choice of many a lot. If some actions is bankrupting you, at some point you have to start watching your consumption. Moderation is the key, banning right away would get lots of negative attention politically which no party would want. If you don´t do anything, only a very small % of environmental people would try, but the majority would do nothing.

Taxing at first, while using taxes to support different environmental campaigns/projects ,especially increasing environmental awareness in school education. At the same time the regulations on companies must be increased step by step to decrease pollution and the overall product environmental costs. Setting some very high standards right away would lead to economic disasted as many companies are not able to reach such standards which would simply bankrput many, while the one´s who can reach these become monopolies. Too many jobs would be lost. That is why usually at least a couple of year notice is given, so companies would have time to cope with the standards.

I am not saying it is done well currently. There way too many loopholes and overally the effort is much weaker than it could be, but at least most countries have chosen the reasonable way, considering the other options would be either outright banning something or ignoring the problems. At least certain action is done, especially in many EU countries (I do not know that well US environmental policies, but when looking at the situation,even these were there, these do not seem to work and other alternatives, whether strengthening the current policies or choosing another direction should be done)

reply to post by Cabin


I think human pollution could become a problem in the future, yes.

Particularly if the developing world becomes developed, the problem will become apparent much sooner than it otherwise would.

And I believe that it's this fear (about the developing world) that is underpinning this whole idea of anthropogenic global warming.

reply to post by midnightstar


Well then,

Why don't companies offer a pollution free form of energy and travel that is cheap so everyone can afford it.

Oh, thats right it's my fault that corporations are setting the standards for energy and travel to make huge profits.

Please, i'm so sick of all the it's our/your/me/mine/oh my fault blaming crap.

Put out a totally priced right, economic, non polluting vehicle and means to heat and light my house. Then if I don't use it you can blame me.

Until then go clean the park and you ride your bicycle 70 miles one way to work.

Don't blame me for trying to put food on the table and shelter over my families heads.

How many pollutants were put into the environment for the OP to make this thread?

What device did the OP use? Were any of the materials of that device come from open pit mining? Were the vehicles used at that mining site powered by diesel fuel? Are there any rare Earth minerals inside the computer servers that this website is hosted on?

Why isn't the OP in China cleaning up the pollution that is their fault instead of doing a post and run thread?

Has the Earth ever been warmer then it is now? You know BEFORE humans existed? Yes Yes it has been warmer, now how did that happen?

reply to post by CJCrawley

Yes, the Earth is warming up.

No it is not. It warmed up from the coldest part of the Holocene interglacial, the Little Ice Age. For the last 17 years it has not warmed up at all! It has plateaued and may be starting to cool.

If you look at other indications besides the continually 'Adjusted Temperature record, ( Graphs showing old data continually 'adjusted' colder ) you see the climate may actually be starting to cool.

NOAA Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover for Fall
October

November

December

Norway is experiencing the greatest Glacial Growth during the past 800 years from a study in Quaternary Research The scientists looked at glacial activity in Norway for the past ~8,000 years.

...an interpretation that is independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP....

In other words overall it is getting COLDER.

This is not unexpected given that the earth's source of heat has DROPPED by 9% since the Holcene Optimum. GRAPH Solar insolation vs Temperature

CO2 adds about 0.09Wm2 to the heat budget where as the Total Solar Insolation at the Top of the Atmosphere is 1365 Wm2 which translates to 428 Wm2 on the surface at 65oN July insolation.

According to Dr. Richard B. Alley, chair of the Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences,

“....The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the glacial inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again....
www.nap.edu...

The ice age ended in one year
“We have analysed the transition from the last ice age to our current warm interglacial period and there is such an abrupt change in climate that it is as if someone just pushed a button”, explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, professor at the Center for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.
atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com...

AND THEY DO NOT KNOW WHY!

THIS is where the REAL Climate Debate is! It has been 11,715 years since we melted our way out of the last glacial, the Wisconsin Ice Age and into the Holocene. Five of the last six interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle. The precession cycle itself varies between 19,000 and 23,000 years and we are close to the 23kyr point now, making 11,715 years about half…….

....the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence....
web.pdx.edu... (NOTE: pdf has been removed from internet)

In other words a preprint of a very recent paper published last September said we are looking glaciation in the face but that inconvenient little fact was scrubbed from the paper and the internet.... Can't have the Sheeple figuring out the elite are going to strand the majority of them with no energy and no transportation and no food in Agenda 21 Transit Villages when the Climate Abruptly Changes not to hotter which we could easily addapt to but to COLD.

ANOTHER QUOTE:
Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments – Axford et al. (2012)

....As summer insolation declined through the late Holocene, summer temperatures cooled and the local ice sheet margin expanded. Gradual, insolation-driven millennial-scale temperature trends in the study area were punctuated by several abrupt climate changes, including a major transient event recorded in all five lakes between 4.3 and 3.2 ka, which overlaps in timing with abrupt climate changes previously documented around the North Atlantic region and farther afield at ∼4.2 ka.....
www.sciencedirect.com...

~ From those who believe in Global Warming (or at least pay lip service to it.)

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

"....Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started....
www.sciencedirect.com...

The onset of cold can be very very rapid.

“Briefly, the data indicate that cooling into the Younger Dryas occurred in a few prominent decade(s)-long steps, whereas warming at the end of it occurred primarily in one especially large step (Figure 1.2) of about 8°C in about 10 years and was accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years; most of the accumulation-rate change occurred in 1 year. (This matches well the change in wind-driven upwelling in the Cariaco Basin, offshore Venezuela, which occurred in 10 years or less [Hughen et al., 1996].)”

Abrupt Temperature Changes in the Western Mediterranean over the Past 250,000 Years
www.sandiego.edu...

Predictable orbital variations led to insolation changes, which triggered less frequent but very intense oscillations. Accordingly, the last glacial inception (substage 5d) has been attributed to a connection between orbital forcing and thermohaline circulation beyond a freshwater threshold within the ocean-atmosphere-sea-ice system...

reply to post by Cabin


I've used this example before, but I think it's worth repeating.

Back in the early '80s, it was determined that the refrigerant R-12 was destroying the ozone layer. It was proven, demonstratable, science. A single R-12 molecule in the atmosphere could float up to the ozone layer and destroy over 100 ozone molecules in a chain reaction. R-12 was used in refrigerators, freezers, and car ACs. Another refrigerant, R-22, didn't pose the same problem because it was heavier than air, and it didn't have the same effect on ozone.

The solution was not to tax R-12, the solution was to stop using it. Simply taxing R-12 wouldn't undo the damage it caused to the ozone layer. A mostly suitable replacement, R-134a, was developed and R-12 was phased out.

The video in the original post showed the smog problem China is having. Well, California used to have a really bad smog problem, too. The solution there was not more taxes, it was better emission controls. Minimize the pollutants getting into the air.

But if governments really need more money to deal with problems like this, there are plenty of places to look, rather than raise or create taxes. In the US, for example, the government could find plenty of money by ending the NSA spying programs, eliminating foreign aid, eliminating the TSA, eliminating Middle East wars and nation building, and many more. After all, which of these are more important than the environment?

If China needs more money to combat pollution, they could stop buying US debt, they could retool their manufacturing to produce cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, instead of churning out ipads and other cheap electronics to sell to other countries.

I'll believe man-made global warming is a problem when governments show that is a fiscal priority without raising taxes.

reply to post by crimvelvet

Yes, the Earth is warming up.

No it is not. It warmed up from the coldest part of the Holocene interglacial, the Little Ice Age.

Well, it may have stopped warming up now, who knows, but it certainly has been warming. Since around 1880, the broad trajectory has been in one direction - up.

I do agree that the warming is probably the result of exiting the Little Ice Age.

For the last 17 years it has not warmed up at all! It has plateaued and may be starting to cool.

The warming may have stopped, it may continue, it may start to cool - only time will tell.

Don't forget, there was an even longer period of around 35 years when the global temp actually DIPPED...but then continued rising again (1940 to 1975 approx.).