UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[Lootifer]

So NS do you agree or disagree that CO2 has an impact on the temperature (in light of the chart below)?

I found a chart, too, courtesy of epa.gov! =)

[Phatscotty]

What caused global warming 40 million years ago? What about 40.14 million years ago? Not being specific with the years there, but there must have been hundreds if not thousands of warmup cool down periods during the history of earth right? We can even restrict that to life bearing earth. in other words how do we know this isn't completely normal? Weren't the driest deserts today just the ocean floors of yesterday? What caused that, or why is that totally natural? I see a lot of charts starting around 500,000 years ago, but what about patterns over millions and tens of millions of years?

Just some of the questions

[Phatscotty]

So NS do you agree or disagree that CO2 has an impact on the temperature (in light of the chart below)?

I found a chart, too, courtesy of epa.gov! =)

like in this chart. WHAT IN THE HECK caused the dramatic rise in carbon levels in 350,000 BC? WHAT IN THE HECK made them drop again?

that chart looks entirely predictable to me, that being about every 100,000 years, there is a spike in carbon levels, and a spike in temperature. I understand that might be a point about the relationship carbon levels have with temperature, and that's fine, but I want to know what caused the carbon spikes and cliffs last time and the time before that, when humans weren't a "problem"

[Lootifer]

Yeah I agree; but over the time frame of that chart there looks to be a pretty significant relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Is it not in our interests to be pretty risk adverse in this scenario?

Regarding your question. Many things have an impact on CO2, but I think the spikes tend to coincide with volcanic activity.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient ... green.html

The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

[BigBallinStalin]

How cyclical is climate change? If the changes are largely cyclical, then what role exactly do humans play in this? E.g. If the Earth's temperature can naturally rise to such high levels before humans, then how do we know that the current climb is predominantly caused by humans and not non-human factors--as seen in the past?

And what caused the temperature to drop so much in the past? How are those factors behaving today? (Are those causes even understood?)

Or, is there simply not enough data, so these questions can't be answered? (If so, then I'd remain skeptical of those seeking to control human/human behavior).

[Lootifer]

If you can work up a pretty solid correlation between CO2 and Temperature then it follows that if we are raising CO2 then we are likely to raise temperature?

Bearing in mind that there have been changes of CO2 in the past that we caused by natural things, up to a limit, above this limit is unknown, but we can tentatively extrapolate...

[BigBallinStalin]

If you can work up a pretty solid correlation between CO2 and Temperature then it follows that if we are raising CO2 then we are likely to raise temperature?

Bearing in mind that there have been changes of CO2 in the past that we caused by natural things, up to a limit, above this limit is unknown, but we can tentatively extrapolate...

Sure, I don't deny that correlation, but what caused the decline in past temperatures? If those variables are significant enough, then by what degree would they reduce our current 'growth' rates?

Let's assume that had there not been the human factor, then temperatures for the past 2000 years should have been decreasing--as they did after past peaks (and assuming that the past cycles will hold into the future). From what I see on the graph, it looks like those variables which impose downward pressure are being equally offset by increases in temperature from the humans, so... is there really a problem? (We could have inadvertently stabilized the temperature rates of the planet! Hurray!--I guess.).

Another oddity is that for the past 10,000 years (?), it seems that the temperature has remained about constant, so... if we then add in the human factor, we still see no change from the past 10,000 years. What does this mean?

[Lootifer]

I get ya.

I dont know that "stabilizing the temperature of the planet" is a good thing, but I accept its a big ole unknown.

Recent data: who knows...?

[BigBallinStalin]

That and the unknown impacts (e.g. the total ignorance/overlooking of net benefits) give good reason to remain skeptical of not climate change itself--but rather the policy recommendations.

I don't mind being wrong about this conclusion, but panic and ignorance can't be good circumstances for proscribing policy.

[Phatscotty]

not to mention, you have to account for those who use this information to create fear. You might say "but the fear is justified, the cause is good" well then at least you know how Bible thumpers feel

[DoomYoshi]

I think we can just look at Venus.

[-Maximus-]

My bible doesnt even go back 10,000 years. All this millions and billions talk is irrational. Even the stupid evolutionists can see they are guessing hundreds of years and trying to guerilla math hundreds of thousands of years out of it.
What about the earth before Noah's flood? You know when people were easily living 900+ years. I bet those calcs dont account for the first rain on earth being only 1200 years after creation.
How about the fact that humans cannot destroy the earth because God will one day cast it in the lake of fire. If it is destroyed this would be pointless. God is never irrational but it seems we humans are.

[chang50]

My bible doesnt even go back 10,000 years. All this millions and billions talk is irrational. Even the stupid evolutionists can see they are guessing hundreds of years and trying to guerilla math hundreds of thousands of years out of it.
What about the earth before Noah's flood? You know when people were easily living 900+ years. I bet those calcs dont account for the first rain on earth being only 1200 years after creation.
How about the fact that humans cannot destroy the earth because God will one day cast it in the lake of fire. If it is destroyed this would be pointless. God is never irrational but it seems we humans are.

Especially true of fundies I find.......

[thegreekdog]

A lot of moderators posted in this thread. I don't know what that means, just thought I'd mention it.

OP - does the UN tell us what climate changes are caused by humans? Are there examples? I heard someone mention that Hurricane Sandy was caused by humans (I suspect it was Al Gore, but I always suspect him of saying shit like that).

[thegreekdog]

A lot of moderators posted in this thread. I don't know what that means, just thought I'd mention it.

OP - does the UN tell us what climate changes are caused by humans? Are there examples? I heard someone mention that Hurricane Sandy was caused by humans (I suspect it was Al Gore, but I always suspect him of saying shit like that).

[Metsfanmax]

Of course I understand the mechanisms of global warming.....but that doesn't make humans the primary cause of it. Remember, the big scare of the 60s and 70s was global cooling.... were we not pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the air then?

A minority of scientists did warn of a potential cooling mechanism -- a total of seven papers were published in that time period warning of cooling. And this was taken out of proportion by the media (as climate change denier claims still are today). Do you know why some climate scientists were warning of this? It is because we were pumping a ton of aerosols into the atmosphere. If you understand the basic physics of global warming, you probably also know that aerosols have a negative climate forcing effect: they effectively reflect sunlight back into space, preventing it from heating our planet. Some scientists believed that we would pump so much of that into the atmosphere that it would overwhelm the warming effect and result in the world cooling. But many more (correctly, we now know) argued that climate sensitivity to CO2 would overwhelm the aerosols. What has made global warming a more dangerous issue than it otherwise might have been is that we have very effectively clamped down on the emission of such aerosols such as chlorofluorocarbons. This makes your statement below fallacious (government policy can have a substantial effect on the climate -- see the Montreal Protocol. Also, study the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 if you want to know why acid rain is no longer a serious issue.):

And even if we assume all of your beliefs are true.....that still doesn't mean that redistributing trillions of dollars of money will fix it. Especially when all of the governmental solutions make the environment worse.

Of course, the sad irony is that although we have mostly stopped the problem of ozone depletion, that has made global warming an even more serious threat. But we had to deal with this problem sooner or later.

There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past?

Humans are not "killing" the Earth's climate. The Earth will still be here after we are gone. We are just hurting ourselves by making the temperature rise faster than we can adapt to it. If humans could have survived in the much warmer climates of the past (unlikely), it would have been through many millennia of genetic adaptation. We don't have that much time to cleanly adapt.

And why do we keep pumping this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere yet the temperatures are not skyrocketing, the oceans rising, and coastlines flooding like we were all promised would happen? Sounds like there is a lot more going on than "humans are evil".

The temperatures are skyrocketing:



The oeans are rising:



And the coastlines are flooding:



If your main reason against understanding global warming is that liberals happen to believe in it, you need to seriously reflect.

[thegreekdog]

That last picture is from Hurricane Sandy dude.

[hotfire]

oh boy 10 inches...run for the hills

[Metsfanmax]

That last picture is from Hurricane Sandy dude.

That's precisely my point. Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

[BigBallinStalin]

There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past?

Humans are not "killing" the Earth's climate. The Earth will still be here after we are gone. We are just hurting ourselves by making the temperature rise faster than we can adapt to it.

That's an interesting assumption. What reasoning does Mets use to demonstrate its soundness?

if humans could have survived in the much warmer climates of the past (unlikely), it would have been through many millennia of genetic adaptation. We don't have that much time to cleanly adapt.

Is genetic adaptation the only form of adaptation? No, so...
Would changes in technology affect this reasoning of his? Yeah.

So, his claim is not sound.

"Not enough time." How does he know?
"'Cleanly' adapt." What's his criteria for 'clean' adaptation? And why should 'clean' adaptation be the only desirable route of adaptation?

[hotfire]

That last picture is from Hurricane Sandy dude.

That's precisely my point. Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

oh...so this is more about the inconvenience of having to move ur home rather than the imminent destruction of the earth

[Night Strike]

That last picture is from Hurricane Sandy dude.

That's precisely my point. Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

Is this like saying that storms are becoming more destructive because the damage they cause costs more to fix?

[Metsfanmax]

That last picture is from Hurricane Sandy dude.

That's precisely my point. Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

oh...so this is more about the inconvenience of having to move ur home rather than the imminent destruction of the earth

No, it is not more about that. It just one of many reasons why we should be concerned about global warming.

But don't sling around the word "inconvenience" too lightly. We in the United States have it relatively lucky. We are affluent (at least here in much of Long Island) and we have plenty of space to relocate if we have to. Imagine living in the Maldives, an island nation south of India.



On average, this country is 1.5 meters above sea level. Within a century or two, this country could well be completely underwater. They have nowhere to run when the levee breaks.



We are talking about the destruction of land and relocation of entire cultures and nations. Developed nations that emit a lot of greenhouse gases are the ones mainly responsible for this sea level rise -- we should own up to this. If we aren't willing to do what it takes to reverse what we are doing to these countries, we should at least be coming up with a plan to save them.

That last picture is from Hurricane Sandy dude.

That's precisely my point. Flooding from hurricanes is greatly exaggerated by the effect of sea level rise. Higher ocean levels mean that flooding (due to whatever causes) are much worse than they otherwise would have been. Many people here on Long Island live very close to sea level. 10 inches means a lot when your home is right on the ocean.

Is this like saying that storms are becoming more destructive because the damage they cause costs more to fix?

One follows from the other. If no one lived on coastlines, the problems associated with rising sea levels would not be as important. But people do live on coastlines and on island nations, and we cannot just wave our hands to make it go away.

[Gillipig]

This was not news even 10 years ago, the UN is starting to become like the Pope, 50 years behind it's time.