IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS?

Quote:

To me, it has plenty of direct and indirect benefits that outweigh the demands of logging interests.

I have a direct pecuniary interest in this area so my comments are probably skewed, however I see logging as one of the very few renewable resources we have.

Of course the forest has to be replanted and harvested in a way that reduces (I'd like to say eliminates but dont think thats possible) Environmental damage. Single tree selection or small coup harvesting come to mind.

the original question of Human influance on global warming. I still think yes The bulk of currently known provable science is saying so. This does not mean that this will always be the case. At one point in time the bulk of scientific information pointed to a flat earth!

Perhaps the question should not be "Is human activity causing global warming?" but "is human activity accelerating global warming?"

0 Replies

How about "is human activity affecting global warming?"

0 Replies

There is evidence from deep cores along the cirques of Kilamanjaro, that this peak had withstood at least two separate earlier times of ice advance and retreat and the buildup of what is interpreted as sub glacial lake sediment with pollen that indicates the presence of warm climate plants. Somehow this volcanic plug had acquired and lost a glacial cap without any help from humans.

My submission to this topic is that a natural cycle is perhaps manifesting itself and will play out no matter what extreme measures we take to control, greenhouse gases.

0 Replies

FM I say again the best available scientific evidence supports a man made cause.
seriously... how much evidence do you want.

Is accelration of temp variation, co2 builup, hole in the ozone layer, all since the industrial revolution a co-incidence?

I remain convinced accellerated global warming is man made but can still discuss alternatives.

Some phillosophical thoughts for discussion

I actually gave some thought today to "the carbon cycle" In order for there to be oil and coal made from trees and vegetation, the carbon must have come from somewhere. So originally this carbon must have been co2. Gradually it was absorbed and converted by vegetation which was eventually compressed and converted to coal and oil.

This happened over millions (and millions?) of years allowing the earths environment to change little by little to cope and compensate for changes. The problem we have now is that we are reconverting to co2 and warming the planet inside a timefram that can allow the environment to compensate.

another however... perhaps this is the path that will allow man to continue to take superior advantage of the environmental resources on the planet. Global warming reduces the ability of other animals to compete with man for precious resources.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

High seas, as a past developer of hydraulic models for viscous fluid flow (oil in reservoirs) , Im not a fan of predictive models that take and transform one space to another and then behave in autocorrelation mode. Solving equations that are so fraught with assumptions of isotropy and "limitless and boundless functions" make me wonder whether the same variables that confound hydraulics in Lagrangian or eularian space will do the same for atmospheric fluid flow.

We have hundreds of thousands of years of records that say'this happened before and worse" as compared to models.

I say that to basically say, I sort of agree with yer point maded in the other thread. ..........

The models referred to aren't using boundless functions; they're the same ones used for simulations of the nuclear arsenal. We know they work because actual experiments (back when testing nukes was permitted) confirm the models' predictions.

Solar radiation is far more important than any other variable: the "anthropogenic CO2" residual gets lost in the little epsilons at the end of the function no matter how many simulations we run.

And I'm with you on the ethanol - a foolish idea propagated by the beneficiaries of corn subsidies - but we part company on the clean nuclear.

Finally: I don't even bother addressing the nonsensical observations made by others here and on the other thread mentioning 50 or 100 years; the great ice sheets started melting 21,000 years ago and there's nothing surprising in the continuation of the process.

0 Replies

high seas

Quote:

The models referred to aren't using boundless functions; they're the same ones used for simulations of the nuclear arsenal. We know they work because actual experiments (back when testing nukes was permitted) confirm the models' predictions.

. I will stand corrected then. Im used to modelling of viscous v dynamics and mayhaps Im not familiar with the models you speak. However, most all models arent valued as forensic tools.dapad

Quote:

Is accelration of temp variation, co2 builup, hole in the ozone layer, all since the industrial revolution a co-incidence?

Again, it appears that high seas and I are in the same bucket, you may be looking at an event bounded by your lifetime and failing to see trends(or perturbations) that span many multiple generations.

CO2 "sinks" have always been primarily the oceans. Seawater is naturally buffered by the CArbonic acid and can provide the free calcium ions upon which sealife builds its tests. Ive read that the normal oceanic sink for CO2 is over 70 Billion tons per year. Of course there are areas the the rate of issuance of Co2 is greater than a local sinks ability to take it up, then there are secondary sources including plantlife (which is a floating decimal)

Im only trying to present some geologic data that questions the consensus of scientific thought. Im not denying that, as a scientists who remanis skeptical, Im in a small minority. BUT, noone ever said that science is a democracy,.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

high seas
Quote:
The models referred to aren't using boundless functions; they're the same ones used for simulations of the nuclear arsenal. We know they work because actual experiments (back when testing nukes was permitted) confirm the models' predictions.

. I will stand corrected then. Im used to modelling of viscous v dynamics and mayhaps Im not familiar with the models you speak. However, most all models arent valued as forensic tools.dapad
Quote:
Is accelration of temp variation, co2 builup, hole in the ozone layer, all since the industrial revolution a co-incidence?

Again, it appears that high seas and I are in the same bucket, you may be looking at an event bounded by your lifetime and failing to see trends(or perturbations) that span many multiple generations.

....................

Quote:

Recently, Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen made a strong bid to silence the opposition, calling for the removal of AMS certification for meteorologists who challenged the belief in catastrophic human-induced global warming. In it, she compared global warming denial to "going on air and saying that hurricanes rotate clockwise," apparently herself unaware that in the southern hemisphere hurricanes do indeed rotate in this direction. Cullen's statement immediately provoked outrage from meteorologists around the nation, with one of them angrily proclaiming, "I don't know a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype."

Heidi Cullen gained earlier fame for hosting environmental writer David Roberts, who openly called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials (complete with death sentences) for any scientist brave enough to dispute the public hysteria on global warming.

Farmerman - you and I better take cover <G>

http://www.dailytech.com/Bad+News+for+Global+Warming+Alarmists/article5914.htm

0 Replies

The controversy on global warming will continue unabated, because we will continue to have conflicting reports from scientists and politicians.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

The American GEophysical Union, while admitting that humankind has some additive effect upon the climate change, Has calculated that, even if all of the world undertakes everything proposed in Kyoto, and reduces greenhouse gases to before industrial age levels, this action would have a delta effect upon the climate change of about 0.13%. Something else is the 800 pound gorilla in the climate change controversy.

Im not reaching any conclusions herein. Im just exposing us to the way science doesnt necessarily march in lock-step. AND, just because some group like the AGU doesnt indict all humankind, but asks a sober question, dont think that AGU is a "pull toy " of the oil or power industry.

0 Replies

More models - in fact all (ALL) 3-dimensional models (necessary for convection, aka oceanic and atmospheric circulation) agree with Farmerman's estimate as to order of magnitude:

http://www.llnl.gov/asc/business_model/images/bubbles_small.jpg

This is a simulation for Reynolds number effects on Rayleigh-Taylor instability, btw, a fundamental equation in weather prediction, nuclear weapons simulation, supernova explosion modelling and other applications.

http://www.llnl.gov/asc/business_model/phys_eng_models.html

It's not that I'm posting in order to teach mathematics: it's just that this scam of the IPCC is supported by the most overpopulated (appalling pollution right there) and poisonous-industrial-waste generating countries, aka the overwhelming majority of the UN members. India, China, sub-Saharan Africa hope to extort more money from developed countries while at the same time detracting attention from their own systematic destruction of the biosphere.

Some form of political-correctness-blindness seems to have descended over Europe, but we'd have to be innumerate fools to buy into that scam.

0 Replies

Simple logic also tells us that humans will not reverse our trend in the consumption of oil, gas and other raw materials. Anybody who thinks scare tactics of global warming will have any effect doesn't understand human nature. What little some countries are effecting to save on energy is not enough to impact anything global. Trying to stop or decrease the rate of growth in China and India's economy will never happen, and their population is the majority.

0 Replies

Back to thread title:

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

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

0 Replies

Perhaps Scotese" best known pub is the intro to Paleozoic Biogeography and geography for the Geological Society of LOndon.His desire to publish a definitive volume on plate tectonics through time has been pretty much "scooped" by Rodgers and Santosh(2004)
His temperature display above, while generally ok, has been based somewhat on a statistical" spectral" analysis method , the actual differentiation for cool and warm time zones based on actual field isotope and other data is actually much more complicated than Scotese shows. There are many more warm/cool
periods in the Plio/pleistocene periods (actually 4 strong interglacial stages).
The problem with many computer models is that we tend to believe em when they simplify the data.

1 Reply

Modelling femtoseconds is more common than geological eons in the equations I'm most familiar with, Farmerman!

Still the author I quoted appears to agree both with you and with similar work at the University of Chicago:
http://pgap.uchicago.edu/

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS?

Did you ever come to a conclusion on this?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmer man, Aren't the scientists looking at the glaciers in Antarctica ice to measure changes on the earth's climate? I think I saw something on PBS or National Geographic many years ago on this subject.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hi CI,

Ice Cores are a key tool for studying climate changes over hundreds of thousands of years.

The ice cores indicate definitively that we are in a warming trend which has nothing to do with human activity. This doesn't mean that humans aren't contributing to the trend, but it's pretty clear that the climate would be warming right now, even if humans didn't exist and had never existed.

0 Replies

From sub sampling on these ice cores, it can be seen that the CO2 increases are actually a consequence of climate change , not the cause of it (That from a recent Columbia Lamont report).

With sun spot activity at a century or more low, we should be able to test the "man induced" global warming thgeories in the next few months.

Im stocking up on firewood. The last time of zero sunspot activity, we enjoyed a global cooling that became known as the "little Ice Age".

Please dont confuse my well reasoned conclusions with the fevered ramblings of gunga snake. Gunga just happens to be close to a fact in this one because, given enough typewriters and time, even a chimp will write a decent SNL skit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

In my opinion, the majority of global warming is due to natural forces (as indicated by the ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years). However, I'm also certain that human activity is contributing to the CO2 increase resulting in some degree of warming (although to what extent, I'm not sure yet).

You pointed out that CO2 increases historically have been a consequence of climate change, not a cause of climate change. However, it's interesting to note that the current increase of CO2 is much larger than any before, and is almost certainly due primarily to human activity. So at this point in Earth's history, for the very first time, we are testing what happens to the climate when CO2 increases actually occur before the warming (Earth's natural processes have never caused this before).

1 Reply

Im willing to accept the data without preconditions. Let the evidence commence!

1 Reply

IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know