Man made climate change?

[Neil]

Is climate change happening? Is man behind it?

[Mike70]

yes i believe so. unfortunately this whole issue has become political and in some regards the hard science has been lost in rhetoric.

a few facts (don't worry i will provide a link to sciencedaily's site on this where you can find hard science and not politics):

the avg temp of the planet has gone up appreciably in the last 100 years by over a deg fahrenheit. doesn't sound like much but a lot of this warming is happening in the artic and is really screwing things up. and that rate of warming is speeding up.

the arctic ocean is freezing over later and later every year and this year the arctic ice cap is at its smallest ever. now the arctic ocean melting would'nt flood coastal areas because it is a huge ice cube sitting on the liquid water beneath it.

it is the ice that is covering greenland and antarctica that would be problem because those ice masses are sitting on land.

the real tragedy of losing the arctic ice would be the wholesale destruction of a number of species - including the polar bear - which is already being displaced in the southern areas of its range by brown bears (because brown bears are better equipped to handle warmer temps and don't rely on pack ice to hunt/obtain food.

also more than 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere every single year by human activity. anyone who seriously thinks that this hasn't upset the natural carbon dioxide cycle (which involves volcanoes, plants, the ocean and the formation of carbonate rocks) is either really science challenged or is making money off the industries that are responsible and really doesn't care.

in addition let's just hope there isn't a methane hydrate fracture anytime soon. that'd really screw us.

now to balance this out we are still living in one of the coldest periods in earth's history. not as cold as the pleistocene obviously, but still cold. the average temp of the earth is about 15 deg C or 59 deg F. there have been times in earth's history (like during much of the age of dinosaurs) when the avg temp of the earth was almost 23 deg C. in fact the beginning of the jurassic saw an increase in temp of almost 5 deg C. But the landmasses where in totally different places and the oceans were also completely different, all of which has a vast effect on climate. seems like there was a huge upswing in volcanic activity then. the concentrations of CO2 and methane (which is actually is a far worse greenhouse gas, capturing something like 20 times more heat than CO2) were also both far higher than today.

for my money i think that the warming we see today is two-fold. having looked at this rather in depth, i think that we are still in a warming trend that ended the last ice age that has fluctuated back and forth (look up dark age warming and the little ice age (from about 1300-1820 avg temps actually dropped rather markedly) BUT i also firmly believe that this warming trend is being seriously aggravated and thrown out of whack by human activity.

anyway here is the link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/

[Dommm]

I personally think that this is somthing that we should worry about, as scipio said it the avg temp has rissen by 1 degree but I ask what happens to your body when your avg temp raises by 1 degree. Also I have often heard that we as humans only contribute to the carbon dioxide in the air by 3 % but again I ask though this seems to be a small contribution to the gasses again I ask is the planet really ready for such a change in its delicate balance. I personally choose (the carppy) underground system or busses to travel to work etc... whereever possible, I try and recycle as much as I can and try to turn off all electrical items in the house if I am not going to be using it for more then a hour.

[axlish]

I think it is mostly natural cycle(s), and is also influenced by mankind to a much smaller degree. Either way, I prefer clean. Bring on more nuclear power.

[Dillinger]

Global climate change is a hoax fabricated by OPEC and the western energy giants in order to drive up the cost of crude oil and gasoline.

EDIT: Besides the fact that the global warming hoax is causing heating oil and gasoline prices to skyrocket, it also restricts travel, which benefits big, nanny-state governments.

[Mike70]

Global climate change is a hoax fabricated by OPEC and the western energy giants in order to drive up the cost of crude oil and gasoline.

EDIT: Besides the fact that the global warming hoax is causing heating oil and gasoline prices to skyrocket, it also restricts travel, which benefits big, nanny-state governments.


ok. so the arctic ice retreating every year and temps going up are merely illusions that have been created. right. that is an inane and idiotic assertion.

temp chart for 1950 to 1999:
http://carto.eu.org/IMG/arton2480.jpg

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.gif

the second image is from the univ of east anglia's climate research unit.

climate over the last two millenia:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140042

[Danny]

ok. so the arctic ice retreating every year and temps going up are merely illusions that have been created. right. that is an inane and idiotic assertion.

temp chart for 1950 to 1999:
http://carto.eu.org/IMG/arton2480.jpg

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.gif

the second image is from the univ of east anglia's climate research unit.

climate over the last two millenia:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140042

Theres pictures from space of the ice receding, cant be arsed to find a link but a picture of it kinda yknow ...is IT, either its a picture of the ice or the illuminatis got a ****ing great photoshop artist.

[Dillinger]

ok. so the arctic ice retreating every year and temps going up are merely illusions that have been created. right. that is an inane and idiotic assertion.

temp chart for 1950 to 1999:
http://carto.eu.org/IMG/arton2480.jpg

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.gif

the second image is from the univ of east anglia's climate research unit.

climate over the last two millenia:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140042

Toss pots!

You're giving us nothing but a mouthful of greek salad. Please explain to me why Exxon-Mobile and Dutch Royal Shell gave 100+ million to Doctor Allen Delahunt in 1995, and two years later he became the biggest advocate for carbon emissions tax and an increase on gas prices. It's all a joke in order to spike fuel prices. Follow the money, and you'll see who's funding the climate change whacks.

Methane gas from cow crap is worse than all the coal burning power plants and SUVs out there. I suppose, you want to kill all the cattle and walk 20 miles to work. Man, that's a REALLY awesome solution!

[strayrider]

Yes, our climate has grown warmer. It's part of a natural cycle. There is NOTHING we can do to stop it, shorten it, or make it less severe. Enjoy the milder weather while it lasts. There's another Ice Age soon to follow.

:D

-stray-

[Mike70]

Follow the money, and you'll see who's funding the climate change whacks.

Methane gas from cow crap is worse than all the coal burning power plants and SUVs out there.


first off. follow the science. exxon and the other oil companies are not funding every single university and every single study out there.

methane is far worse than co2 i covered that too. i guess you just convienetly left that out. could you please be bothered to maybe provides sources? info without them is less than useless.

you are engaging in totally fallacious thought here, our latest conspiracy nut. and if you fooking could be bothered to pay attention, i clearly said in my first post that i beleive this to be a combination of natural events aggravated by humans.

a mouthful of greek salad? sorry but that is what science is. data. i am sorry if you aren't smart enough to follow it and think for yourself without falling back on crazy ass conspiracy theories.

[MinionZombie]

I went for natural cycle, but partially because I'd have voted for an option that didn't exist...

My view is:

There's a lot of natural change going on + mankind has a degree of influence = worry somewhere between "f*ck all will happen" and "REPENT! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!"

But I also take the view of:

Recycling and efficient fuel is simply the next, sensible step for the development of mankind sustaining itself. I really resent the political guilt tripping, as well as the political forcefulness - especially when there's office blocks across the globe with all their lights and computers on 24/7, 365 days a year. :mad:

I just don't like wastefulness in general, but I'm certainly not going to feel guilty about using machines or lights or cars or any of that stuff, no f*cking way.

I'm all for efficiency and actual recycling (none of that crap where it's said to be recycled, but it's actually just land fill anyway), but kindly remove all the idiotic political guilt-tripping from champagne socialists who love the smell of their own farts (a la that episode of South Park :D).

Also, I take things like the Prius and other guilt-ridding devices (that's essentially the underlying popularity of them, in my opinion anyway) with a pinch of salt. Being a green car is more than just the fuel.

I'll never forget that the recent Mercedes S-Class, with a massive engine, is greener than the Prius, simply because of the materials used in its production.

I think there's a lot of con-jobbing going on, particularly amongst the guilt-trippers (get over it already, I think), and there's a lot of abuse going on - i.e. greedy gubments thinking "Excellent! A new way to get MORE money out of people!", or trees being cut down, or land for food being taken over, to make space for bio-fuel.

...

Also, animals fart a lot. :D

[Mike70]

Theres pictures from space of the ice receding, cant be arsed to find a link but a picture of it kinda yknow ...is IT, either its a picture of the ice or the illuminatis got a ****ing great photoshop artist.

hellsing here it is. there is a mpg that shows the ice advancing then retreating. then another animated graph that shows the ice thickness getting thinner.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/seaice_meltdown.html

[Tricky]

I agree its happening,but i dont feel guilty or concerned over it as i agree with what others here have said,its a natural cycle influenced by all kinds of things!And i certainly arent getting caught up in this whipped up media/tree hugging frenzy over it!i look at all these people getting all worked up over it the same as i look at those manic bible bashing nutjobs,sandle wearing do gooders who live off lentil soup :lol:

[Mike70]

I agree its happening,but i dont feel guilty or concerned over it as i agree with what others here have said,its a natural cycle influenced by all kinds of things!And i certainly arent getting caught up in this whipped up media/tree hugging frenzy over it!i look at all these people getting all worked up over it the same as i look at those manic bible bashing nutjobs,sandle wearing do gooders who live off lentil soup :lol:

i don't feel guilty about it either and as i've said many a time it is probably a combination of nature mixed with human aggravation.

there is no doubt the planet is getting warmer (unless exxon is going around and setting everyone's therms forward). there is no doubt that the artic ice is forming later, is retreating and is thinner by the year (again unless exxon is getting out there with blowtorches every winter to hold it back). some animals in the arctic like polar bears are already feeling the heat (haha aren't i funny).
link to polar bear article:
http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2004-12-03&section=1&id=4

the question that lot's of folks disagree on is why.

i am of the opinion that nothing is ever as bad as the doomsayers make it out to be and is never as rosy as the naysayers make it out. reality is usually somewhere in the middle. that is applicable here too because i don't believe that human activity is solely responsible nor am i blind think that the spike in temps is a solely natural occurance.

[strayrider]

The spike is natural. It happens every 100,000 years or so ... followed by a period of cooling.

This link might help explain why.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate_Change/Older/Earths_Orbit.html

I suppose it is possible that our industrial revolution has helped the spike along somewhat, however I would compare it to a man pi$$ing in a swimming pool during a cloud burst.

No matter what we do, it IS going to happen. Mother Nature is an unforgiving beeotch and she ALWAYS wins.

:D

-stray-

[bd2999]

Can't really argue with the fact that it is happening and humans do matter in the process, but at the same time I think there is evidence of this sort of thing happening before. I think humans are making it worse and sort of speeding up the process, but are not soley responsible.


The spike is natural. It happens every 100,000 years or so ... followed by a period of cooling.

This link might help explain why.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate...ths_Orbit.html

I suppose it is possible that our industrial revolution has helped the spike along somewhat, however I would compare it to a man pi$$ing in a swimming pool during a cloud burst.

No matter what we do, it IS going to happen. Mother Nature is an unforgiving beeotch and she ALWAYS wins.


Probably, I have heard many similar things that sound reasonable. I mean humanity is not doing the world any favors, but I think the people thinking it is all our fault are out of line with the whole thing. Although I see no reason that we cannot start recycling more and using more efficient forms of energy. It would help cut back on our contrabution but would not stop it. Heck I would go with those just so that some president at a oil company does not retire with the pathetic amount of several hundred million dollar buy out.

[Legion2213]

Mother Earth is a "living breathing creature", it gets hot and cools down all the time, they were promising us the spectre of "global freezing" in the 60/70's, now it's global warming....yawn.

MMGW is a new cult/religion, those who deny it are called heritics and demonised...those who embrace it are the chosen ones.

If folks wish to live in a super stable climate they should bugger off to the moon.

[MinionZombie]

If folks wish to live in a super stable climate they should bugger off to the moon.

:lol:

But aye, there is a really scary neo-religious 'thing' with some mega-greens out there, and if you dare question the extent of our involvement, you're branded as a plant from Shell or whatever, some oil-loving nutjob with their eyes glued shut with all the lovely oil ... actually you're just legitimately engaged in a true debate about a serious issue.

Understanding an issue doesn't come from picking one angle and then jamming your fingers in your ears and going "la la la, I'm not listening" while screwing your eyes shut, and neither is demonising people for wanting to examine all the angles to get a true picture of things.

The mega-greens are scary people, they're the new evangelists...it's like religion for those who gave up religion (well, some of them anyway ... the ones who feel guilty about not having religion).

[Tricky]

It also amuses me how the green zealots choose to ignore the fact that in certain parts of the world glaciers are actually expanding!shock horror!i guess it doesnt suit their agenda :rolleyes:

[Terran]

they were promising us the spectre of "global freezing" in the 60/70's, now it's global warming....yawn.



Thats actually not true...and has been debunked several times over in the press and in scientific articles.....Even back in the 70s there was a large camp predicting global warming.



Objection:
The alarmists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's, now it's warming! Why should we believe them?

Again, this is just based on a falsehood, though there is a grain of truth to it. The only thing you can do is emphasize the remarkable difference between the warnings then and the warmings now.

Answer:
A very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidy behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. In the 1970's, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. No daily headlines. No avalanche of scientific articles. No United Nations treaties and commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers.

There quite simply is no comparison, I'm sure you could find better evidence of a "consensus" of a coming alien invasion.


It also amuses me how the green zealots choose to ignore the fact that in certain parts of the world glaciers are actually expanding!shock horror!i guess it doesnt suit their agenda :rolleyes:



Also not really an issue and is addressed by many of the climate warming models...


Objection:
The Antarctic Ice sheets are actually growing, which would not be happening if Global Warming were real.

Sigh. A gaggle of shrinking glaciers all around the globe doesn't prove a thing, but one thickening ice sheet at the south pole and the debate is supposedly over. What can you do except present a few facts and explain the very simple cause?

Answer:
There is actually very little data about the changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets, and the conclusion of some growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet is so little that with the uncertainty, it might even be shrinking. This is not a surprising phenomenon as such an increase would be the result of increasing percipitation and this is fully consistent with a warming world as the antarctic is a desert and warmer climates tend towards more percipitation. And even if you warmed 10 oC from -50 oC, you would still be accumulating snow, not melting in the rain.

There is some widespread glacial melting on the Antarctic peninsula and ice shelves are breaking up, but it does indeed appear that the mass balance on ice at the south pole may be positive but negligible. This does not, however contradict the theory of Global Warming in any way whatsoever.

While on the subject of ice sheets, Greenland is also growing ice in the center for the same reasons described above, but it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km^3 of ice annually, doubled now from a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to what the changes may be in the Antarctice, around three orders of magnitude larger. So any potenial gain in total volume of ice on the planet due to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is wiped out many many times over by Greenland's ice sheet.

And

Objection:
Sure, some glaciers are melting. But if you look at the actual studies, most of the ones that have data are actually growing!

Just another incorrect assertion. What do the scientists say?

Answer:
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center and their State of the Cryosphere division, on their Glacial Balance page they report an overall accelerating rate of glacial mass loss. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has similar findings, the most recent data coming from 2004. While there surely are some growing glaciers, studies like these above are designed to determine a global trend by ensuring glaciers from all regions of the globe are assessed. Not all have quality data for decades and decades, but in all there are 67,000 glaciers in the World Glacier Inventory.

There are some good photographic before and after images as well as other images of the different visible effects of Global Warming at this page.

There are some very compelling animations of changes in Glacier Bay National Park here.



Here is more evidence...

Sea ice reaches new record declines:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
Glaciers in Greenland are receding and calving at record rates:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/grace-20051220.html
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4508964.stm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc--rag111405.php
This is a global phenomenon:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
Ancient permafrost is also thawing:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1523.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1215-24.htm
Clearly we are dealing with much more than a few receding glaciers.

[Mike70]

earlier in this thread i also provided a link to a NASA animation of the retreat of the artic pack ice and the subsequent loss in ice area and thickness; along with several, several links to temperature change models/graphs.

i take the position, which i'll reiterate here again that there probably is some natural warming (we are in an interglacial period are still near the colder side of earth's temps, not as cold as the pleistocene but still relatively cold. BUT to simply turn a blind eye to the 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide and insist that it can have no effect on climate is whistling past the graveyard.

gee, i really hope that i haven't been viewed as some sort of green zealot or whatever because actually i care very, very little for any sort of political activism or for that matter politics of any sort. it bores me and is something i consider childish in the extreme.

i care about science and data. not rhetoric. 75% of the problem with this issue is that it has become political in many ways, something if find disgusting. once politicians and media pundits get involved in something and superimpose their agendas on it, it becomes manifestly harder and harder for solid researchers and academics to get their voices heard amid the blare of slogans and idiotic media trumpetings.

[Tricky]

So the glacier on mount st helens that is growing 3 feet a day is irrelevent then?Climate change models have one thing missing,and that is the unpredictability of nature,no model will EVER be able to throw that in the mix because any model of climate change has been made by man & therefore follows rules,rules which nature doesnt work by...
Nature will sort its **** out one way or the other,mankind is just vain enough to think that it will be here forever & that it somehow controls nature!this planet will still be here & probably still have life on it when mankind is just a distant memory,whether climate change,disease or war has wiped us out!Dinosaurs ruled the earth once,dont see many of those about these days either,same will happen to man one day,either that or we'll evolve into something else....

[Terran]

So the glacier on mount st helens that is growing 3 feet a day is irrelevent then? .

Well yeah it is....

Im just using some arbitrary numbers here...but lets say 90% of all glaciers are melting while 10% are growing wouldnt you say that the global trend is that ice is melting.....Couple this with the fact that there is a net loss of sea ice and glacial ice every year.....

So yeah a handful of glaciers growing is irrellevent....and does not disprove a thing...



Every passing year more and more data comes out. Every year this data continues to strengthen what is almost universally accepted amongst scientists. I really do not understand why people are so reluctant to believe what the data clearly indicates....

[Mike70]

I really do not understand why people are so reluctant to believe what the data clearly indicates....

me neither. i am at a loss for it as well.

anyway here is the link to the NASA/Goddard arctic ice animation, again.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/seaice_meltdown.html

and a seperate graph:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060404_graph_72dpi.gif

as you can see since the late seventies/early 80s there has been a loss of roughly 2 million square km of ice from the arctic.

on a seperate note: the academic side of me gets really irritated when people make unreferenced assertions and claims without providing a shred of evidence to back them up.

[Legion2213]

Several thousand years ago, the entire planet had a tropical climate, before that there was an ice age. It's not that people don't believe that tempretures are fluctuating, they just don't believe that it signals armageddon or that it is all mans fault.

The fanatical ravings of the pro-climate change camp don't help the cause either IMO...I'll go to church if I want to be preached at by holier than thou types. If the greens are all so concerned, they should shut down the PC and give us some peace.

Al Gore rapes gaia for resources...
http://www.acepilots.com/mt/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/al-gore-desk.jpg

Edit: I see a lot of graphs "proving" global warming here....none of them stretch back more than 200 years though....let's see some long term graphs covering a million years or so, to get the big picture, not just a miniscule snapshot that proves your point.

[Mike70]

that is a fallacy. several million years ago there were no humans pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atomsphere, in fact that didn't start to happen until the industrial revolution.

fact -(which there is a link in one of my very first post in this thread) the temp of the planet has been increasing since the year 1900 and as the pace of industrialization has quickened and spread to other parts of the globe, the warming trend has accelerated since the late 70s.

the assertion that the planet was entirely tropical thousands of years ago is patently false. the global drop in temps that peaked in the pleistocene era started millions of years ago.

again- it is a fallacy to assert that just because the temp has fluctuated over time it is impossible that the upswiing we see now is not being aggravated by human activity.

so here is a graph the traces the temp of the earth throughout its history:

which is from this site:http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

[Legion2213]

Your graph just proves the climate sceptics point, the earth goes through warm and cool periods.

Or put it another way, if my government's answer to MMGW wasn't to start squeezing more money from me by making new green taxes while allowing 100's of 1000's of new resource hungry immigrants to come here (who all want the same resources as me) I might be a bit more convinced...maybe I will be convinced when they stop all immigration and start encouraging those or us who live here to reduce the population....or does that sound too logical and sensible?

If global warming is caused by man, I find it funny that the UN and no government has called for drastic global population reductions, which to me, seems to be the most important way of reducing our resource needs.

[Mike70]

dude it proves no point except that there are warmer/cooler periods. if you look at the graph the warming/cooling trends take place over thousands, sometimes a couple of million years. we have seen an appreciable spike in temps within just 100 years. that isn't in line with the past warming/cooling trends. it is a rather serious anomaly.

look man, i am not some enviromental nut nor am i some sort of greeno tree hugger. i hate those folks quite a bit.

i am just someone with a deep background in academics that looks at data without regard to what i would like it to show me. nor am i someone who is entirely blaming human activity for what is happening.

edit: this has been one of the best and most civil debates that we have had on here in ages. aside from a bit of nuttiness by someone who thinks exxon is setting our thermos forward, this has been rather interesting.

[MinionZombie]

Ugh yeah, the whole political angle of it really turns me off big style - but it doesn't make me waste energy or not recycle. At my house, we don't waste the lecky, we also don't chuck everything out, we do a fair bit of recycling, mainly thanks to a local service which picks up glass, paper, thin card...also we have this compost bin thing for stuff like potato skins and orange peels and stuff.

I was at the cinema on Sunday and yet again, this f*cking advert about "climate change, finally it's on everybody's agenda" - yet it bangs on as if it wasn't, and basically bitches at us normal folk for killing the planet and then makes some cheeky joke at the end...

*ahem*

Britain is what, 2% of mankind's contribution ... and then think of that 2% - how much of that is business & government offices with all their lights blaring, and computers running and all sorts 24/7, 365 days a year?

TURN THAT SH*T OFF! :mad:

Also, Scip, you don't come off a Green Zealot at all. If you were, you'd be calling in hellfire for the likes of us who don't say that it's all man's fault and we should all be ashamed of ourselves and be really guilty all the f*cking time for using the tools of modern life to do things and make trips in a matter of hours instead of days. :p

[Neil]

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

[Tricky]

. I really do not understand why people are so reluctant to believe what the data clearly indicates....

The thing is,i do believe climate change is happening,i just dont care :)