AGW-Anthrogenic Global Warming

[charlz]

But, even if man can change climate, can anyone explain to me why we would ever want to avoid the climate conditions which lead to rapid advance of civilization?

A long time ago I came across the quote "The biggest mistake people make is to believe that things will always stay the same"

In this case they are afraid of change because they expect it to not change. I would much rather be warming than cooling.... food doesn't grow in ice.

 

[charlz]

The problem with the posted graphs is that they only go back a few years.

Also that they stop several years ago. Supposedly the winters of 2007/08 and 2008/09 are the coldest since the 70's... but the graphs don't show that. Sea ice has been at it's greatest levels in decades as well. AGW supporters are now backpedaling and stating that a period of cooling before more heating is to be expected

 

[charlz]

File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This graph from Vostok ice cores and goes back 400,000 years. CO2 goes up. Temperature goes up.

Actually you read that graph right to left not left to right. As Temperature goes up CO2 goes up. One of the theories out there is that the oceans store lots and lots of CO2. Warm water can hold less CO2 that cold water. As the temps rise the oceans release CO2.

There is still a 'chicken and the egg' problem with a lot of the data. Supposedly the famous graph that everyone uses has the CO2 leading the temps when it should be the other way around.

Search for "The Great Global Warming Swindle " on Google video for an interesting perspective.

 

[texbaylea]

Interesting comments. Here is a paper graphing some of the things you have written about.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

The Petition Project mentioned in the banner is a listing of people who disbelieve in global warming.

Remember "correlation does not mean causation".

Vernon

 

[dmccarty]

Actually you read that graph right to left not left to right. As Temperature goes up CO2 goes up....

The graph is time based. I read the graph starting at 0 meaning todaish going back in time 400,000 years so left to right.

OTH I don't think it much matters talking about AGW. 50,000 years ago humanity did not cause global warming or global cooling. So whether warming causes CO2 rise or CO2 rise causes warming is not important for AGW.

Which happens first CO2 rise or temp rise is interesting to understand climate change. Even if the chart is read right to left or left to right its kinda hard to tell which caused what. Maybe a larger/more detail graph would show but my eyes can't really see which came first Chicken or the egg/CO2 or temperature change.

Later,
Dan

 

[charlz]

So whether warming causes CO2 rise or CO2 rise causes warming is not important for AGW.

Actually that is the crux of AGW.. that CO2 makes temps go up. If data were to show the opposite, that temps go up and CO2 follows, then AGW has no basis

 

[polo1665]

This is a very interesting topic and one that I usually stay away from. I am sort of a man made global warming agnostic. While I would like not to believe it, I also feel that our presence has to have some impact on this earth. If your dog was sick and infested with six and a half billion ticks, it might be safe to say that they were the cause of its health problems.
That is where I think we go wrong, we tend to disassociate ourselves with the ecosystem and nature, when we are very much a part of it. It is irresponsible to assume that we can continue to suck the life blood (so to speak) out of the earth without some negative effect. The issue to me is not whether we have an effect on our surroundings, it is rather, how our surroundings will react to put things back into balance. This earth has been around for billions of years before we were here and has survived worse threats than us.
It is said not to underestimate the will of life, that it will always find a way. You can believe that the earth will not cease to exist due to our actions. Surely we wouldn't be so egotistical as to think that we are the sole purpose the earth exists, that it is here solely for our benefit. We are a very small part of the grand scheme of things in my opinion. If mother earth decides she has had enough of us, she'll brush us off her back like a horse brushes a fly off with its tail.
Sorry to get so philsophical, but when I go out at night and look up at the stars I suddenly feel very small and vulnerable. It is then that I appreciate the sheer immensity of our surroundings. We are very small, and it would do us all well to remember that.

Mark

 

[jimmyj]

Amen polo 1665! Well said.

Recently someone posted a neat old chinese proverb, went something like

"All great feasts will come to an end"

All us people, there must be some natural reaction to our influence in the ecosystem.

 

[charlz]

I don't believe that man's presence has no influence on the environment. I believe that man's presence is NOT THE ONLY influence on the environment. When presented with a list of environmental influences:

Sun spot activity
Oscillations in Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun (100,000 year cycle)
volcanic emissions
variations in the earths tilt (42,000 year cycle)
man made emissions

Some people grab on to only one, want to guess which one?

I think the key item to look out for in any 'environmental issue' is the increasing amount of them that have an anti-human basis. People who have an anti-human basis blame everything on man to the exclusion of all else. I don't believe that. I believe that mans presence HAS an effect but not to the degree that it is the ONLY and predominate one affecting global climate.

As more 'environmental' views become mainstream the environmentalists have to become more and more extreme to stay 'anti-establishment'. Ultimately you reach the 'man doesn't belong here' mentality which is where things get dangerous. We go from 'man is the king of the jungle' to 'man is a parasite'.

 

[czechsonofagun]

Unfortunately it is now political issue more than anything else. Some people made it their vehicle to make the news, rake in money, collect rewards etc.
Climate is always changing and GW today is a religion, nothing more, nothing less.

I had people approach me asking: how is global warming affecting country - i.e. Czech Republic. Well, according to the history of my country, it used to be much warmer there - when Charles the 4th brought vinifera from Burgundy (14th Century). It was about the time we were able to grow water melons - not possible anymore, too far north.

Without politicians, who make their living via GW it would faded away long time ago - just like predictions of approaching ice age (seventies or so). BTW The Club of Rome was one of those who predicted that ice age. That think tank actually did not foretold anything correctly, b ut they make very good money out of it. Guess what, they jumped the GW wagon too, LOL!