A co-worker and I started talking about it, and I, playing devils advocate, blamed it all on humans and that it would ultimately lead to our demise. But I really didn't have any real scientific facts to back it up. I heard the hole is the ozone is getting smaller, but then I heard that the north pole is becoming a lake. I am just wondering, what everyones opinion is? Is climate change something to worry about or is it a natural cycle? No doubt pollution is bad and we are causing great harm to the earth, but are we causing the climate change? How do you prove something like that?
Global Warming/Climate Change: Is it only a concern in caused by humans?
- Thread starter TheSiege
- Start date
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,778
- 6,338
- 126
GW can be Natural and has occurred naturally before. However, the current GW is occurring at an accelerated rate and has an input that has never happened before. That being, large amounts of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere due to Human use of Fossil Fuels.
Climate change happens both naturally and because of humans. But it's not only humans and it's not only recently that species can and have caused climate change. But for the most part in the past the climate hasn't changed dramatically without some sort of major event.
Humans have been driving a lot of the recent climate change, due to CO2, and other factors. If you want to understand it, look at the changes that have been happening, look at the acidification of the ocean, the melt rate of glaciers and global ice, changes in weather patterns,... Then look at the causes. The problems that are arising are far more than something simple like it's getting warming globally. As the climate also still has a lot of variation based on natural forces so you can't simply blame man made climate change for everything, or if something is normal or the global temperature drops you can't say man made global warming isn't happening.
There are also simple physics you can look at to see what is happening that will drive climate change, or other negative effects. As the entire globe is interconnected. http://video.pbs.org/video/2334144059 Here is a nova program about how we can see the earth from space now days and how different parts effect others. Plus you can then see how changes man makes can effect others that you wouldn't think.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
It's not that it's man causing it that is the concern. The concern is that it's happening too rapidly for a lot of things to "adjust" - for instance, if it results in a change in circulation in the Atlantic Ocean, it's going to seriously screw up a large part of Europe. If the North Atlantic Deep Water circulation shuts down, Western Europe would likely be similar to an ice age, despite the average global temperatures being higher. Similarly, there may/would be a lot of different shifts of local types of climate. Populations generally are affected by local climates - e.g., access to fresh water. Some regions would be better off, but that's offset by the fact that other regions would be worse off. This leads to huge shifts of population over relatively short spans of time. Ditto things like sea level changes - look how little it took from Sandy to completely overwhelm parts of NYC. Of course, there are things that could be done - building of sea walls, etc. But, there are negative effects of doing that - it would eliminate a lot of those wetland areas that are between urban areas and the open ocean.
Just because its happening rapidly, how do we definitely know its man made? Where is the proof? Or is that just our best guess? I'm speaking as a skeptic. If you take a look at any trend there is always going to be spikes and low points, couldn't this just be a spike? How do we know high CO2 numbers is causing dramatic climate change. Just because they are both rising rapidly doesn't necessarily mean they are contingent on one another right?
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
It is certain that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know with certainty that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.
Some people who want to attack doing what we can against the problem, whether out of ignorance or malevolance (for profit or politics), will play on misleading points.
They'll argue that 'it's not entirely caused by man', or that not every detail is exactly provable science, to imply it's just some natural thing not to worry about.
Of course the actions of man combine with what naturally happens.
In one sense, it doesn't matter if they're caused by man. If a big meteor is coming at the Earth, we ask what we can do even though man didn't send it. Even if climate change was a natural phenomena, if it's especially harmful, we should ask what we could do to prevent the harm.
But science does say that the dominant cause of harmful climate change is man-made. That doesn't really drive our response to it, as I just said, but it's good to understand that, partly in terms of knowing that we might be able to take steps to reduce the harm - the funny thing is, though, that it's not as simple as 'stop doing what causes it'. For one thing, things done that cause the problem can't just be undone - you cause the harm now, and the effects might come a lot later. Then everyone says 'oh, this is bad, fix it', but not much they can do at that point. For another, we're dependant on a lot that causes problems - we're just not going to give up all the fossil fuel energy we'd have to.
So the answer to your questions is, 'yes, science supports the dominant cause is man-made, but that isn't the main issue, the issue is the need to get the political support for making the changes we can to reduce the harm, which are fought hard by our most profitable industry on the planet'.
The proof is not hard to find, just look for climate science published for the public interest.
They'll argue that 'it's not entirely caused by man', or that not every detail is exactly provable science, to imply it's just some natural thing not to worry about.
Of course the actions of man combine with what naturally happens.
In one sense, it doesn't matter if they're caused by man. If a big meteor is coming at the Earth, we ask what we can do even though man didn't send it. Even if climate change was a natural phenomena, if it's especially harmful, we should ask what we could do to prevent the harm.
But science does say that the dominant cause of harmful climate change is man-made. That doesn't really drive our response to it, as I just said, but it's good to understand that, partly in terms of knowing that we might be able to take steps to reduce the harm - the funny thing is, though, that it's not as simple as 'stop doing what causes it'. For one thing, things done that cause the problem can't just be undone - you cause the harm now, and the effects might come a lot later. Then everyone says 'oh, this is bad, fix it', but not much they can do at that point. For another, we're dependant on a lot that causes problems - we're just not going to give up all the fossil fuel energy we'd have to.
So the answer to your questions is, 'yes, science supports the dominant cause is man-made, but that isn't the main issue, the issue is the need to get the political support for making the changes we can to reduce the harm, which are fought hard by our most profitable industry on the planet'.
The proof is not hard to find, just look for climate science published for the public interest.
Thats my point a scientist, probably with an agenda says CO2 is a green house gas, where is the proof?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
CO2 has an impact of being a greenhouse gas; defined by it's properties.
However, the amount that has been dumped by human is minor compared to what mother nature does.
Is mankinds additive the tipping point; probably not, but it makes a nice story and allows finger pointing.
However, the amount that has been dumped by human is minor compared to what mother nature does.
Is mankinds additive the tipping point; probably not, but it makes a nice story and allows finger pointing.
Yes nature does output a lot more CO2 that what humans have done, but nature also absorbs CO2 so overall CO2 rate remains rather steady from nature.( unless there is an event that isn't normal.) While humans have a large net increase to CO2 output. Plus the increase in CO2 is measured in the atmosphere and in other places.
You'd think it would be fairly easy to prove if man introduced CO2 emissions were having any effect. In the industrialization of nations, more CO2 is produced, thus, we should see an increasing effect right as more nations became industrialized. Granted we only have maybe 250 years of accurate temperature readings.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,243
- 136
CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. This has been known since well before global warming was even a controversy. It's a scientific fact.
If you're going to dismiss the opinion of the scientific community, then I'm unclear why you started this thread. What do you want to do here, discuss lay opinions on the subject? They're worthless.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,778
- 6,338
- 126
crashtestdummy
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2010
- 2,893
- 0
- 0
This is a pretty accessible overview. Note in particular the following plot:
Look at the numbers on the left axes. Even at their peaks, O2 and N2 are nine orders of magnitude less adsorbent than CO2 or water vapor in the near-infrared range, where much of the thermal energy of the earth is dissipated (and, incidentally, not where the incoming solar energy is). That means that thermal radiation coming from the earth that used to go into space is being adsorbed by the atmosphere, some of which gets reflected back down. It's like the difference of leaving a bucket of ice cubes on your table vs. putting them in a thermos.
This is a pretty accessible overview. Note in particular the following plot:
Look at the numbers on the left axes. Even at their peaks, O2 and N2 are nine orders of magnitude less adsorbent than CO2 or water vapor in the near-infrared range, where much of the thermal energy of the earth is dissipated (and, incidentally, not where the incoming solar energy is). That means that thermal radiation coming from the earth that used to go into space is being adsorbed by the atmosphere, some of which gets reflected back down. It's like the difference of leaving a bucket of ice cubes on your table vs. putting them in a thermos.
So its more like CO2 is displacing the O2 and N2 that would otherwise be reflecting infrared (heat) back into space?
crashtestdummy
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2010
- 2,893
- 0
- 0
The O2 and N2 are merely transparent to the near-infrared light, while the CO2 is adsorbant.
Think of it this way: CO2, O2 and N2 are all roughly equally transparent to the visible light from the sun (hence why you can't see any of the gases). So the amount of light impacting the earth is the same no matter the atmospheric composition. The adsorbed energy on the earth's surface is re-emitted in the form of vibrational energy--infrared light. CO2 adsorbs some of that light and reflects half of the energy it adsorbs back to the earth (again in the infrared), while O2 and N2 just let it pass through.
(Please forgive the super-quick mockup graphics.)
The reason for this, by the way, has to do with the molecular structure CO2 vs. O2 and N2. Because O2 and N2 are binary, homogeneous molecules, they for the most part cannot vibrate in a way that shifts their dipole moment (i.e. the charge distribution in the molecule). CO2, by contrast, has many such vibrational modes.
Last edited:
It's really boggling how a human being can take an issue where one side is the most profitable industry in the world with a motive to and documented history of lying about it, spending many millions to spread the lies, and they have nothing to say about that but say 'the scientist probably has an agenda'. That's crazy.
I'd like to point out that at one point 98%+ of the world's scientists used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was flat. Just because they agree on something now doesn't mean it is true.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,778
- 6,338
- 126
True, however, until someone can make a Scientific argument that holds up to Scientific scrutiny, it is foolish to just accept it.
Lets look at the facts with proven data or information.
Global Warm is a natural occurrence since the end of the Ice Age. Earth had several glacial periods and the cause is unknown. We are currently in an Ice Age that has progressively getting warmer. The last 50 years a large increase in Co2 levels has been measured. Some infer it's fossil fuel usage. I thinks it's related to massive growth population post WWII and human excessive usage and production of energy.
Based on ice core drilling in Vostok Antartica, CO2 levels flutates periodically the last 400,000 years and the earth's temperate seems to correlate with this. Earths temp seems to vary 10-12C. I don't know where they got that temperature number but the CO2 is measurable. Another gas, Methane, is also highly correlated to earth temperature.
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf
- Use of fossil fuels create dust, smog, fine particulates, and CO2 and other green house gases. Greenhouse gases can lead to an increase in temperature of the earth.
Related info - Dust levels seem to increase and corresponds with a dramatic drop in temp, then a gradual rise in Co2 and temp. Possible cause - meteor/ asteroid impact, volcanic activity, nuclear war, or aliens sprinkle fairy dust in the air. What is known CO2 and Temps are correlated
- Glaciers have been receding at an alarming pace in the last 25 years. Result is higher ocean water levels and smaller ice sheets.
-CO2 and Methane reservoirs gas can be trapped in ice waters and lakes in Siberia and Greenland that can have been cover by ice shelf for thousands of years. Melting ice can release this. Lake Nyos in Africa is an example of stored CO2 in a large water body reservoir from surround volcanic moutains.
Interesting Fact - Glaciers covered in black pollution are disappearing faster than uncovered ones. The black layer causes them to absorb more heat in the summer and melt faster. In the EU, they are using sheets and blankets to cover glaciers and preserve them for tourists.
Interesting Fact- Alaska had it's warmest measure summer heat wave.
- Ozone is smaller but that doesn't matter, the Ozone is important in reducing UV rays. The primary cause in thinning the Ozone was aerosols with CFC and HCFC discover by two Nobel Prize winning chemist at UCI. The Montrol Protocol eliminated the use of CFC like R-12 in air conditioners and industrial use by the 90s and now HCFC like R-22. UV rays could increase temperature of the earth but the primary worry was skin cancer. It's still a conspiracy that it was business related and pushed by Dupont to corner the market and use their new copyrighted and company developed refrigerants.
Global Warm is a natural occurrence since the end of the Ice Age. Earth had several glacial periods and the cause is unknown. We are currently in an Ice Age that has progressively getting warmer. The last 50 years a large increase in Co2 levels has been measured. Some infer it's fossil fuel usage. I thinks it's related to massive growth population post WWII and human excessive usage and production of energy.
Based on ice core drilling in Vostok Antartica, CO2 levels flutates periodically the last 400,000 years and the earth's temperate seems to correlate with this. Earths temp seems to vary 10-12C. I don't know where they got that temperature number but the CO2 is measurable. Another gas, Methane, is also highly correlated to earth temperature.
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf
- Use of fossil fuels create dust, smog, fine particulates, and CO2 and other green house gases. Greenhouse gases can lead to an increase in temperature of the earth.
Related info - Dust levels seem to increase and corresponds with a dramatic drop in temp, then a gradual rise in Co2 and temp. Possible cause - meteor/ asteroid impact, volcanic activity, nuclear war, or aliens sprinkle fairy dust in the air. What is known CO2 and Temps are correlated
- Glaciers have been receding at an alarming pace in the last 25 years. Result is higher ocean water levels and smaller ice sheets.
-CO2 and Methane reservoirs gas can be trapped in ice waters and lakes in Siberia and Greenland that can have been cover by ice shelf for thousands of years. Melting ice can release this. Lake Nyos in Africa is an example of stored CO2 in a large water body reservoir from surround volcanic moutains.
Interesting Fact - Glaciers covered in black pollution are disappearing faster than uncovered ones. The black layer causes them to absorb more heat in the summer and melt faster. In the EU, they are using sheets and blankets to cover glaciers and preserve them for tourists.
Interesting Fact- Alaska had it's warmest measure summer heat wave.
- Ozone is smaller but that doesn't matter, the Ozone is important in reducing UV rays. The primary cause in thinning the Ozone was aerosols with CFC and HCFC discover by two Nobel Prize winning chemist at UCI. The Montrol Protocol eliminated the use of CFC like R-12 in air conditioners and industrial use by the 90s and now HCFC like R-22. UV rays could increase temperature of the earth but the primary worry was skin cancer. It's still a conspiracy that it was business related and pushed by Dupont to corner the market and use their new copyrighted and company developed refrigerants.
We don't know if human civilization is causing a shift in global warming from it's regular pattern. Are we contributing to it, of course. The amount we contributing to it, we are unsure.
For all we know, the gas marshes in Siberia is the cause in the increase atmospheric CO2 levels. I haven't seen any math based on the estimated consumed fossil fuels match the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
For all we know, the gas marshes in Siberia is the cause in the increase atmospheric CO2 levels. I haven't seen any math based on the estimated consumed fossil fuels match the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter