A new theory of climate change

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:40 pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Grand Poster Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 1036

Saitou wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

So man-made climate change is only the most likely theory. So what?

Is what you are trying to imply here that - "Hey! Everyone used to think Newton was the be-all and end-all, and then the lone voice of Einstein proved him wrong , so when a lone voice says that man-made climate change isn't the be-all and end-all they must be right , too!"?

Please note the use of the word "hints" in the title of the article, rather than subverting it to support your agenda.

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

At one time it was believed that man and the earth were the center of the universe and in Galileo's day this was the consensus at least until he challenged it.

Today it's the belief that man is at the center (responsible for) of global warming even though the world is millions of years old and in the past has gone through warming and Ice age periods not attributed to man.

My bet, is that when all the information and studies are finally in, Science will trump the current political consensus of environmental politics.

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:31 am

Stuz719 wrote:

So man-made climate change is only the most likely theory.

It IS just a theory...

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:52 am

madoba wrote:

Today it's the belief that man is at the center (responsible for) of global warming even though the world is millions of years old and in the past has gone through warming and Ice age periods not attributed to man.

Indeed, the climate has changed many times in the past without human input. The question we must ask is whether or not there is some significant non-human generated event that could be attributed to the current warming trend? If there isn’t, then the most probable cause is human generated CO2 emissions.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

Lots of people believe man can change the environment.

Just the other day I saw a documentary about some people chanting while dancing around a fire in an attempt to bring rain.

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:21 pm

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

Lots of people believe man can change the environment.

Just the other day I saw a documentary about some people chanting while dancing around a fire in an attempt to bring rain.

Even dancing around a fire changes the environment, even if only on a small level. Humans have dramatically altered the environment on many levels, many of which have nothing to do with CO2 emissions. Think of the dramatic environmental changed caused by the construction of a large city. I’m not arguing this is necessarily a “bad” thing, only that it alters the environment. The larger our population becomes the larger our environmental impact becomes.

Intern Joined: Feb 02, 2006 Posts: 205

Quote:

madoba wrote:
Today it's the belief that man is at the center (responsible for) of global warming even though the world is millions of years old and in the past has gone through warming and Ice age periods not attributed to man.

Quote:

Mockinggods wrote:
The question we must ask is whether or not there is some significant non-human generated event that could be attributed to the current warming trend? If there isn’t, then the most probable cause is human generated CO2 emissions.

Oh I see global warming explained via god of the gaps, excuse me, man of the gaps. So If you don't understand all the significant non human generated events contributing to global warming then it must be man.

Newbie Joined: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 21

There is a book out just recently called "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years". I haven't read it yet but Dennis Prager interviewed the authors and here is the podcast.

http://acu.libsyn.com/
http://acu.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=163922

These guys make an excellent case that global warming is caused by a well established solar cycle that occurs every 1500 years or so. Note this is not just something they've dreamt up, it is supported by mud samples taken from lakes and ocean sea beds and is not in dispute since it's the result of much reseach.

Furthering the strength of this argument

- 70% of recent warming has taken place between 1850 and 1940. After 1940 it declined slightly for about 35 years until recently it rose again. This fits with the erratic solar cycle but doesn't make any sense in terms of the CO2 output.

- Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth made a mistake or two. There are many examples of peer reviewed research that dispute Global Warming is man made. In particular hundreds (I think they said) in relation to the aforementioned solar cycle.

- Al Gore's graph of CO2 level and temperature over the last, however many thousand years it was, omits the vital fact that the temperature change in each case precedes the CO2 level increase by 800 years. In other words the temperature increase causes the oceans and land etc to give off CO2 increasing the level after the warming takes place.

I note that 99% of the recent arguments over global warming have been about whether it is really happening or not. Now that issue seems beyond dispute people may not have noticed that the cause of it is as man made is no where as strong. The fine print always says "probably" or "maybe".

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:52 am

To me, the crime in all this is concluding that since we don't know for sure then we should do nothing at all.

I think any sane person would agree we should take steps to minimize our impact on the atmosphere, especially when our influence CAN be devastating. The only question is how fast to implement changes.

Arguing against the POSSIBILITY that humans could all by themslves destroy the atmosphere is like arguing that we can't kill off humanity with hydrogen bombs because it never happened before.

It should be a foregone conclusion that the way we use our technology is fully capable of having the kind of disastrous impact that people fear is already happening. It should also be obvious that if our philosophy is do-nothing, this will become a problem if it isn't already.

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:01 pm

Dirkmonger wrote:

These guys make an excellent case that global warming is caused by a well established solar cycle that occurs every 1500 years or so. Note this is not just something they've dreamt up, it is supported by mud samples taken from lakes and ocean sea beds and is not in dispute since it's the result of much reseach.

This makes good sense because the evidence suggests that recent warming and cooling trends have been very cyclic and an atmosphere rich in CO2 will only compound the affect. I’d have to ask though, is there any evidence to suggest that we’re currently in such a solar cycle?

There is little doubt that C02 is a major green house gas. There is no doubt that humans have been pumping this gas into the atmosphere in extremely large quantities. This gas is not something the atmosphere dissipates quickly, and with the human destruction of some the natural reduction processes (the rain forests, etc), we’re going to be stuck with an atmosphere rich in CO2 for quite sometime.

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:07 pm

madoba wrote:

Quote:

madoba wrote:
Today it's the belief that man is at the center (responsible for) of global warming even though the world is millions of years old and in the past has gone through warming and Ice age periods not attributed to man.

Quote:

Mockinggods wrote:
The question we must ask is whether or not there is some significant non-human generated event that could be attributed to the current warming trend? If there isn’t, then the most probable cause is human generated CO2 emissions.

Oh I see global warming explained via god of the gaps, excuse me, man of the gaps. So If you don't understand all the significant non human generated events contributing to global warming then it must be man.

No, I was asking an honest question. Is there any other evidence to suggest the current warming trend is caused by something other then human generated CO2? What Dirk wrote could be such evidence if it could be shown that we're currently in such a solar cycle, and even if it was, there is strong evidence to suggest that an atmosphere rich in CO2 will only serve to compound the affect.

Measurements have shown very convincing evidence that the atmosphere has a higher concentration of CO2 (I believe 3x the level) of one hundred years hence. We know humans are releasing this gas into the atmosphere in extremely large quantities, hence there is little doubt where these higher levels of CO2 are coming from.

Newbie Joined: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 21

Note that the authors of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years also claim that CO2 does not have the effects being claimed for it. Apparently it is also true that adding extra CO2 begins to have less and less effect. This is new information to me so I can't comment.

Just to comment on the 'do nothing' approach. Well I don't think that is being proposed at the moment. It's just taken a long time to ascertain that we are actually warming up. However I wouldn't condone taking action just as an insurance policy, building nuclear power plants or sequestering CO2 underground is hugely expensive and comes with it's own drawbacks. Instead we need to determine as far as we are humanly possible what the cause is first. Then if we are still uncertain it will be prudent to take steps to reduce CO2. Otherwise we could spend billions of dollars of our limited resources trying to fight an unstoppable natural cycle.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

The jury is in. Global Warming is real and Man is a major contributor in it as well.

Newbie Joined: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 21

"The jury is in. Global Warming is real and Man is a major contributor in it as well."

In light of new evidence there may need to be a re-trial.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore