Human Cause, Global Effect

It's very clear from the article that global warming is our fault, but what we do we can undo. But the obstacle to overcome is that we human don't all agree on what should be done. So we still can't change the weather and it's still mostly up to mother nature to control our climate.

my guess is they started this research 3 years ago. What they missed is that for the last 8 years we have had no net warming and added to that we are going into perhaps a 15 year cooling period. Since they have invested warming capital in their research they have to report "its our fault". By the way, Al Gore thinks the Myanmar cyclone is the result of globall warming. Continuing the warming drumbeat is making him richer trading carbon credits. This will go down as the biggest scam of all time.

Apparently jb missed how it's been said a million times in a million different media outlets how 8 of the 10 warmest years on record have been in the last 10 years. That doesn't say "no net warming" or "cooling period" to me.

What record is that you speak of? 8 of the 10 hottest years in Earth's history? That is doubtful.

While I'm glad this research is being done, I question the methodology. It looks like only the climatologists are the only group of scientists that can forgo the scientific method. How could you show natural variation couldn't produce the results? Did they take a slice of the earth removed from human influence? Ridiculous...

I like Pop Sci but I am saddened to see it follow a politcal fad. The fact of the matter is that there is really no hard science, one way or the other, that there is global warming, man made, natural or otherwise.

Simple logic shows that the earth does have natural cycles: the Ice Ages occurred naturally. The earth was warmer during the time of the dinosaurs. Humans didn't change it in both cases, but the earth changed nevertheless.

Mammoths have even been found frozen in ice with grass in their mouths! This indicates that the Ice Age occured very, very quickly when it happened.

Based on these facts alone it is arrogant to conclude that any climate change is due to humans, and it is also bad science.

The PopSci post used the words “likely” in quotes. So, I’m assuming they are only reporting what is in the article, and not making an opinion.

Climate models using recent data are proving the prediction methods of the older models were not accurate. So, science has a long way to go to prove the "Global Warming Armageddon" hypothesis.

Right now, people are using “Global Warming” as a marketing mechanism for business, ideological reasons and for political correctness for short term gains which heightens the emotional response. What is essential and important is that humans continue to become more efficient through science and technology via free market systems. My guess is that more people will buy an electric hybrid to save money from $10 a gallon gasoline, than to protect the planet from “Global Warming” because human nature is ultimately self serving and short sighted.

"Apparently jb missed how it's been said a million times in a million different media outlets how 8 of the 10 warmest years on record have been in the last 10 years. That doesn't say "no net warming" or "cooling period" to me."

"What record is that you speak of? 8 of the 10 hottest years in Earth's history? That is doubtful.

While I'm glad this research is being done, I question the methodology. It looks like only the climatologists are the only group of scientists that can forgo the scientific method. How could you show natural variation couldn't produce the results? Did they take a slice of the earth removed from human influence? Ridiculous.."

wmv715 on record means that in the time that humans have first handedly captured accurate measurements. Not the beginning of time or human exhistance, but in the last 150 years. "8 of the 10 warmest years on record" meaning in the last 150 years... that means that the last 10 years have been conciderably warmer than any decade for 150 years... I would have to agree that a cool down seems unlikely. If not nonexhistant... 90% is a pretty powerful number when coming from scientific studies that are related to global climate. Rather than scientists with no background saying yes or no as an opinion... And may I point out that this no net warming period that you talk of... Global warming may still be occuring because the sun has developed a new and larger sunspot (cooler areas of the sun) so the earth will be taking in less infrared energy thus masking the affects of global warming... yes some cinic will say well then what are we worrying about? the sun is cooler we made the earth warmer its all good!!!. trust me, rellying on somebody or, something else in this case, isn't good for business, and your wellfare... if you want to solve your own problem do it yourself.
Please refrain from commenting on grammar... it gets really annoying...

Step 1: Show that natural climate variability wouldn't produce these changes. (Done by this study.)
Um, NO NOT REALLY

Step 2: Show that the globe's warming can be blamed on human influence. (Done by IPCC report. This holds true, scientists say, even with natural climate variability)
Um, NO NOT REALLY

Ergo: The changes are due to human influence.

Um, Maybe, Maybe NOT I'm sure Human Influence has some effect, BUT the amount is still Debatable

Popular Pablum

I think its hard to say weather or not this study does prove anything.
Notimpressed do you have any scientific data that would show otherwise? I think if we really wanted an answer we would have to have some large scale research trying to prove the opposite, which I doubt many people are interested in doing. Either way the study does show that there is global warming. It is hard to deny it when studies of 28,800 biological systems point to the fact that the overall global climate is warming up. I'm sure that some of this warmth was caused by natural effect but how can we deny our impact on the environment. Studies show that in the past 150 years (since the start of industrialization and thus large consumption of fossil fuels) there has a been a 25% increase in atmospheric green house gases. This in itself shows that us humans have contributed in someway to the warming of our planet.

fromageston... (sorry I can't read your whole name)
Writes:

Notimpressed do you have any scientific data that would show otherwise? I think if we really wanted an answer we would have to have some large scale research trying to prove the opposite, which I doubt many people are interested in doing.

in response, Which side of the argument would you like Scientific Data to "Prove" There's plenty "Studies" to Prove either side, just a lot more money behind the Globull Warming side. You too can google that...

------------------------------------------
fromageston...
It is hard to deny it when studies of 28,800 biological systems point to the fact that the overall global climate is warming up. I'm sure that some of this warmth was caused by natural effect but how can we deny our impact on the environment. Studies show that in the past 150 years (since the start of industrialization and thus large consumption of fossil fuels) there has a been a 25% increase in atmospheric green house gases. This in itself shows that us humans have contributed in someway to the warming of our planet.
------------------------------------------

Wow 28,800 that's a big number.. Have you actually read any of these studies or how they were conducted
or just someones opinions on the results ..............

I thought so...

"Studies" also show that several times in just the last 1500 years and hundreds of times in history that CO2 levels have been several times higher than they are today. and a funny thing, I have yet to find any story about someone digging up a fossilized SUV Must have been prehistoric cow farts ...oh wait, that's methane, not CO2 sorry

Actually you missed my entire point......
It would be completely illogical to think humans have had no effect.......but it's also illogical (and arrogant) to think humans are THE cause of the current climate trend......

In True Science, the debate seldom concluded

What scares me more that Globull Warming is the Damage that the "enlightened" are going to reap upon the rest of society in the Name of being Green............

Actually, I'm just mad because I haven't figured out a way to make big $$ off this whole AGW thing like my hero Al...

Here is an interesting article talking about one scientist's OPINION based on research and science.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Confusion-by-Roy-Spencer.htm

Sigh.... another politicorporate piece of agit-prop from the fourth estate.

I'm not nearly so concerned about greenhouse emissions as I am about Whitehouse emissions.

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for responsible stewardship, but I'm wholly against hypocritical liars seeking to enrich themselves at the cost of the proles. Honest science is NOT supportive of the human caused global warming myth.

If you want to know what professional meteorologists think about this GW hype, you can go here: http://www.climatebrains.com/

It is not arrogance to conclude that climate change could be caused by human actions, quite the opposite. The hubris is found in the belief that the actions of mankind are without consequence.

As for logic over emotion, does it make more sense to believe that a greenhouse gas that is emitted by the industrial activities of mankind in ever increasing amounts year after year and that can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years could influence global temperature or that there exists a conspiracy of thousands of scientists around the world who forge peer-reviewed scientific studies and data in the ideological pursuit of global government and funding protection?

The Earth has not cooled over the last decade. Plot temperature data from any of the major sources from 1999 to the present and a continued warming trend is revealed. It is not coincidental that NASA GISS noted 2007 as the second warmest year on record, and this during a solar minimum and without the El Nino conditions that pushed 1998 to record levels.

Solar activity has not increased over the last 30 years and cannot account for warming during that time. Increased temperatures and CO2 levels have thrown the biosystem out of equilibrium, and it is no surprise that the biosystem is responding.
___________________________
Fresh Air. The Scent of Pine.
http://scentofpine.wordpress.com

>It is not arrogance to conclude that climate change could be caused by human actions, quite the opposite. The hubris is found in the belief that the actions of mankind are without consequence.

Response: It is hubris to assume that we have power over such awesome scale while we lack any credible data.

As for logic over emotion, does it make more sense to believe that a greenhouse gas that is emitted by the industrial activities of mankind in ever increasing amounts year after year and that can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years could influence global temperature or that there exists a conspiracy of thousands of scientists around the world who forge peer-reviewed scientific studies and data in the ideological pursuit of global government and funding protection?

Response: First - carbon dioxide is consumed by plants, so it will not "remain in the atmosphere" for long. Second - while I don't doubt that there is no conspiracy by scientists, where they all get in a room and agree to lie, I do think that their opinions can be colored by the fact that they are receiving more research funds due to the hype.

The Earth has not cooled over the last decade. Plot temperature data from any of the major sources from 1999 to the present and a continued warming trend is revealed. It is not coincidental that NASA GISS noted 2007 as the second warmest year on record, and this during a solar minimum and without the El Nino conditions that pushed 1998 to record levels.

Response: So? None of this means that humans are to blame.

Solar activity has not increased over the last 30 years and cannot account for warming during that time. Increased temperatures and CO2 levels have thrown the biosystem out of equilibrium, and it is no surprise that the biosystem is responding.

Response: Out of equilibrium of what? There was more carbon dioxide in the atmposhere before, as well as less. Temperatures go up (time of dinosaurs) and temperatures go down (Ice Age). Who is to say what is "equilibrium"?

Now tell me this: how are we causing the temperature rise on Mars?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Hint: perhaps we have nothing to do with any of this, and the sun is indeed putting out a little more energy...

Can we really afford the time to argue? do we really want risk the human race because we don't want to believe it's true? I'd rather not die from a scorching hot earth or have an ice age especially within my lifetime or possibly my children's lifetime. I really don't think anyone of the human race would like to simultaneously die from either heat or cold. We shouldn't need to listen to studies and articles about how its our fault, the main point is that the earth is changing and unless we can speed up evolution to survive the new environment, we're all gonna kick the bucket. We should be focusing on fixing this rather than arguing about the facts and who's to blame. Goddammit I don't want everything we've done as a species to be wasted, i especially don't want to know that my life is pointless knowing that whatever i do to benefit the whole won't be worth shit if everybody isn't around in the next hundred or so years. I'm not going to take that chance, and I will do everything possible to make sure that this doesn't happen, naturally or unnaturally. Whether we're causing it or not we should be trying to prevent it from happening at all. God knows not all of us may survive both cataclysms.

Back in the 70's, after a bunch of cooler than average years and the fad was global cooling, complete with ideas on how to make the planet warmer. Imagine if everyone had jumped on that bandwagon. Even if humans are causing it I'm not convinced it's a bad thing. The Earth has been changing temperatures for billions of years, and look where we are today. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying "greenhouse effect", but aren't greenhouses good? Don't plants love them? Maybe more plants will grow and absorb more CO2. Okay maybe some frogs mate earlier, maybe even die. So what? Thats evolution. Since when do we take it upon ourselves to protect every little thing that can't adapt to a changing environment.

Don't get me wrong, I love the environment and spend as much time in the wild as I can. For me the bigger (and related) problem is overpopulation. I think if you want your grandkids to enjoy the natural environment we do today then you should have less kids.

Finally, no matter how much "science" backs up this fad (it is still a fad even if it is very real), I will always take it with a grain of salt, because if scientists ever prove that it is not happening, not our fault or not a big deal I'm pretty sure the multi-million dollar grants will be replaced by unemployment checks.

"First - carbon dioxide is consumed by plants, so it will not "remain in the atmosphere" for long."

The duration that CO2 remains in the atmosphere is 100 years on the low end.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00296.htm

"So? None of this means that humans are to blame."

So, global temperatures rise over a very short period of time with no identifiable natural cause while concurrently an atmospheric greenhouse gas reaches its highest level in 400,000 years, and your foundation for inaction is a reliance on coincidence.

"Out of equilibrium of what?"

Equilibrium is a balance of forcings versus reactions, a balancing of the scales. This balance can be found with 5 oz on each side (for instance a very cold condition) or 5 tons (for instance a very warm condition). Historically, shifts in the balance occur over hundreds and thousands of years, not decades.

"Now tell me this: how are we causing the temperature rise on Mars?"

Hopefully, you realize that Mars is a completely different planet with vastly different atmospheric composition, surface conditions, orbital patterns, and so on. In other words, Mars could be warming at the same time as Earth, cooling at the same time, or going in completely opposite directions, all with equal validity. Even the article you link does not attribute Martian warming to solar variance.

___________________________
Fresh Air. The Scent of Pine.
http://scentofpine.wordpress.com

I get tired of hearing "CO2 levels have risen therefore we must be the cause". The occurance of two events at the same time does not prove causality. You have to prove that warming would not have occured if we did not modernize. I think humans are giving themselves way too much credit for being able to change climate. Where are the huge number of hurricanes that were predicted following Katrina ?(because of warming) Didn't happen.

I think what is really happening here is humans don't want to admit that they are at the mercy of many forces, some understood but many more not understood. We are in denial that maybe this Earth changes in disturbing and radical ways that will necessitate changes in the way we live. In short, instead of trying "clean up" our behavior in small laughable ways, perhaps we need to learn how to adapt so that we can survive. We aren't much better than the animals frozen in the ice of the last ice age that did not understand their surroundings well enough.

Gonazar said: Can we really afford the time to argue? do we really want risk the human race because we don't want to believe it's true?...

Making decisions without debating the facts is unwise. It would be like piloting an airplane with no idea of how everything works. "Let's pull back on the stick to go up" could easily result in a stall, causing the plane to crash.

Scientists are supposed to figure out what is actually going on, and make decisions based on facts, not fads.

Logic over emotion.

Michael S said:

"The duration that CO2 remains in the atmosphere is 100 years on the low end.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00296.htm"

...and 100 years is but a blink of the eye in the terms of geological time, so you are really validating my arguement. Plants will consume the carbon dioxide quickly.

"So, global temperatures rise over a very short period of time with no identifiable natural cause while concurrently an atmospheric greenhouse gas reaches its highest level in 400,000 years, and your foundation for inaction is a reliance on coincidence."

I agree with GenXer on this one: "The occurance of two events at the same time does not prove causality."

Equilibrium is a balance of forcings versus reactions, a balancing of the scales. This balance can be found with 5 oz on each side (for instance a very cold condition) or 5 tons (for instance a very warm condition). Historically, shifts in the balance occur over hundreds and thousands of years, not decades.

Simply not true. We have ample evidence for very large and very quick changes in temperature, one of which I gave (the frozen mammoth with grass in its mouth). None of this had anything to do with human activity.

"Hopefully, you realize that Mars is a completely different planet with vastly different atmospheric composition, surface conditions, orbital patterns, and so on. In other words, Mars could be warming at the same time as Earth, cooling at the same time, or going in completely opposite directions, all with equal validity. Even the article you link does not attribute Martian warming to solar variance."

So what you are saying is that without ample proof of what is causing the temperature to rise on Mars we cannot conclude what is causing it...

Think about that.

I'm so tired of you fools with your conspiracy theory crap "global warming isn't real its just a way for scientists to get more funding. . ." How can any of you actually deny that human activities have a profound effect on the ecology of the Earth? Have any of you ever seen the massive smog clouds hanging over any major city? Is it so hard for you to believe that the billions of tons of pollution produced per year that you can't see could be having an effect? Do you think that billions of people burning trillions of tons of petroleum fuels in the last hundred years is going to have no consequence?

This seems to be the basic argument you nay sayers keep using:

Global warming cannot be absolutely proven given our current knowledge, so we should just ignore the evidence we do have------that way we can go on happily polluting the Earth without having to feel any guilt about it.

and another thing, what makes you high and mighties think that you really know what the heck is going on? If you're not willing to listen to the people that are actually experts (the ones that spent 10 years of their lives doing a masters, Ph.D and then a post-doc to get were they are) than who the heck will you listen to? Do you think that you know the real scoop because you read a few science magazines and follow the headlines on CNN?

I bet all the MDs and physiologists out there that are telling you to get off your fat butt in order to avoid a heartattack are just trying to get more government funding as well. . .

taitus,

>I'm so tired of you fools with your conspiracy theory crap "global warming isn't real its just a way for scientists to get more funding. . ."

Somehow, I don't think that calling people "fools" is a good way to change their minds. Just a hunch.

>How can any of you actually deny that human activities have a profound effect on the ecology of the Earth? Have any of you ever seen the massive smog clouds hanging over any major city? Is it so hard for you to believe that the billions of tons of pollution produced per year that you can't see could be having an effect? Do you think that billions of people burning trillions of tons of petroleum fuels in the last hundred years is going to have no consequence?

You are confusing pollution (which I think hardly anyone denies) with global warming (which is very valid to debate). Dumping arsenic into rivers (a form of pollution) does not cause global warming.

>This seems to be the basic argument you nay sayers keep using:

>Global warming cannot be absolutely proven given our current knowledge, so we should just ignore the evidence we do have------that way we can go on happily polluting the Earth without having to feel any guilt about it.

It is funny that you bring up the subject of "guilt". Isn't that an emotion? Read my screen name.

>and another thing, what makes you high and mighties think that you really know what the heck is going on? If you're not willing to listen to the people that are actually experts (the ones that spent 10 years of their lives doing a masters, Ph.D and then a post-doc to get were they are) than who the heck will you listen to? Do you think that you know the real scoop because you read a few science magazines and follow the headlines on CNN?

Again, insults are not the most effective argument. In any case, I am willing to listen to those in the field but that doesn't mean that I must believe them blindly. Remember, even bonafide climatologists do not agree on the "global warming" theory. If there is significant internal debate amongst the experts, is it not arrogant for non-experts to take one side?

>I bet all the MDs and physiologists out there that are telling you to get off your fat butt in order to avoid a heartattack are just trying to get more government funding as well. . .

...and doctors used to believe that it was helpful to bleed the sick in order to help them recover. They only changed because, get this, people started to question their beliefs and demand proof.

It is not "unscientific" to question theory and demand proof before accepting it as fact.

I have to say... People's statements that "the debate is over", are ridiculous. No scientists agree on this. 1000's of scientists say that it is true, just as many say it is not. How often do you hear about how NASA has shown that all of the planets in the solar system have shown a significant increase in temp at the same time as our own planet. Global Warming is a corporate fad, the only ones who push the issue are those looking to profit from its "plausibility". Frankly, I dont think Global Warming is man made, we are basing our "high temp" records off of only 150 yrs of near accurate temp recording. Scientists agree that at the time of the dinosaurs, earth had an avg temp of approx 107 degrees F, or higher. We have to save our planet, its the only one we have and we cant recycle it. We have to conserve our resources, stop strip mining, stop mass deforestation for Mcdonalds and biofuels. We have to stop littering and pollution, especially considering there are 2 garbage islands in the middle of the pacific nearing the size of USA alone. I'm all for a green movement, just not under the guise of "man- made Global Warming" and not for the profiteering of global corporations and their lobby monkey's like Al Gore. No Carbon taxes. more green energy sources, more hawke reactors to rid ourselves of landfills... Think Green does not mean think about the planet, at least not to the corporations that are pushing the products and byproducts of global warming. Think Green to them means $$$, and lots of it. Al Gore's house emits more CO2 in 1 yr than mine will in 10 yrs. Which side of the "Green Line" are these guys on, Money or Earth?

Climate change happens, get used to it. It's been happening for billions of years. The funny part is that the human race could have been extinguished at any time in history and it seems like people are only realizing that is a possibility now?

Climate change is just another club in the hands of government. AND the government wants you and me subsidize the cost of turning corporations 'green'.

The hottest year on record was not 1998 .A canadian mathematician checked all of the figures and proved (and NASA AGREED)that 1934 was the hottest year recorded ,by part of a degree. This is very inconvenient for thr world renowned climatologist (of absolutely no credentials)al Bore.I noticed lately that the term "global Warming "has become inconvenient and is being replaced by the nebulus term"climate Change" .As the famous tv detective Columbo would have said ...one more question please Did global temperature not drop ever so slightly this past year? Dont be naive PopSci-Follow the money

Global warming is the biggest hoax there is, the earth has weather cycles. It is good to take care of the planet, but let's not be stupid about it. Want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or how about a carbon credit, same thing. Wake up people, you are being had.

Sometimes I wonder if there isn't anything better to do than to write things like this. It is obvious that the climate is changing, but that humans are the root cause of it is highly doubtful. While these good people are informing the public of all the areas around the globe that have experienced teh higher temperature and melting of the glaciers, for some odd reason they are not so eager to tell of the areas that are experiencing lower that average temperatures. In my own area for example, we have been experiencing below freezing temperature after nightfall. Considering it is nearly June, that is highly irregular. If you read some of the textbooks of the "ancestors" of the individuals endorsing global warming now, published in the 50's 60's and 70's, you will read of their great fear of "global cooling" ??????. Hmmm? Yes, While humans may play a small part in this "Global Climate Change" It is not substantial enough to warrant a serious lifestyle changing "greenization" of the whole country. Instead of focusing on the "theory" of Global Warming, I wixh these intelligent people would use their gifts for something more profitable to the Human Race, say developing an alternate fuel source that would be cleaner and MUCH cheaper than petroleum.
Well, these are just soe of my thoughts
Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.

شات
تحميل العاب
يوتيوب
مسجات
قصص
برامج
عالم حواء
مصارعة حرة

nice work

مصارعه حره
برامج كمبيوتر
اغانى اطفال
افلام
صور
نغمات
ثيمات
صور سيارات
نكت

good work