Global Warming Cause: People or Planetary Mechanics?

pgrmdave · July 12, 2006

I don't think that stopping polluting will slow global warming, but that's not the only negative effect of polluting.

TheFaithfulStone · July 12, 2006

But if we stop polluting the enviroment, will it really help to slow global warming? I mean as you said earlier, the same thing happend millions of years ago with the dinosaurs. History has a way of repeating itself.

If you are can affect climate change and you cut greenhouse gases, you save the world.

If you can NOT affect climate change and you cut greenhouse gases, the world is doomed.

If you can affect climate change and you do NOT cut greenhouse gases, the world is doomed.

If you can NOT affect climate change and you do NOT cut greenhouse gases, the world is doomed.

The only scenario in which the world is not doomed is if we cut greenhouse gases.

Apologies to Blaise Pascal, but that's the way of it.

But's that's a moot point because global warming is real, it's anthropogenic, and it's here.

http://www.realclimate.org

Apologies it should be "our world" and "the world."

TFS

HydrogenBond · July 13, 2006

The earth is self regulating either way through the engine of weather, which is water. If CO2 increases, the temperature gets warmer. This means more water in the atmosphere. Water is a natural scrubber for CO2 forming carbonic acid, which has a low vapor pressure. The rain ends in the oceans which are slightly alkaline for neutralization and the formation of bicarbonate and carbonate, which often precipitate.

The more water in the atmophere due to warming, also means more rain causing plants to grow, which also traps CO2. The higher amounts of water in the atmosphere also means bigger storms which can rise up higher, scrubbing even higher atmospheric CO2.

One of the wildcard variables is that weather is not uniform. Some areas can recieve too much rain stunting veg growth. Others can undergo droughts causing forest fires that maintain higher levels of CO2. This variabilty in the wildcard is partially connected to solar changes such as solar flares and sun spots. Humans also add to the wild card. But in the end, the earth will cycle up and down, ad infinitum because of water.

There is one other variable that is ignorred. Below is some data connected to the reversal of the earth's magnetic field.

A study was made of intermittently produced Miocene lava formations at Steen's Mountain, Oregon, USA, which gave a very detailed picture of both the intensity and directional changes which occurred during a magnetic reversal. The complete reversal took about 4500 years and the average magnetic field at the surface fell to about 20% of normal during the change. The transitional field was typically non-axisymmetric and there was much meandering, even crossing the equator three times. Three geomagnetic impulses occurred which corresponded to high rates of change of the field. The angular rates of change were approximately 50 +/- 20 degrees per year.

If we assume the magneto-dynamic theory, where the moltem aspect of the earth's core in motion produces convection , which produces the magnetic field, the above data implies a radial change in the convection. The wild change of convection implies a major source of internal earth heat near the core. With the magnetic field showing signs of switching, the global warming could be partially due to an earth's core affect, similar to that above. This could explain the heating of the oceans. In other words,warmer oceans will make the air warmer, if one assume the same amount of solar heat input.

ForensicsGuy · July 16, 2006

When I was getting my degree at UC Davis, my environmental chemistry teacher had a day discussion on the ozone layer. The environmentalists were claiming that at the current rate of ozone depletion, by 2005 the Earth would be uninhabitable by everything but some simple bacteria.

Like the ozone hole political scare tactics of 10 years ago, global warming is this decades new boogey-monster. Normal variances in global temperatures is normal, and the amount of "greenhouse" gasses put out as a result of mankind pales in comparison to normal volcani activity.

The current "warming trend" is actually already on the down-swing. But I enjoy watching the "Chicken-Little" effect in the news. I'll see you all in ten years, and there won't be any icebergs in down town Manhattan. ;)

learnin to learn · July 16, 2006

The current "warming trend" is actually already on the down-swing. But I enjoy watching the "Chicken-Little" effect in the news. I'll see you all in ten years, and there won't be any icebergs in down town Manhattan. :hihi:

;) :lol:

TheFaithfulStone · July 17, 2006

And what did we do fifteen years ago? We banned CFC, and voila! ozone depletion is largely not a problem anymore.

But then, you're not really accurately representing either argument are you? I remember very few people talking about "uninhabitable save for a few bacteria." I remember a whole lot of people talking about "skin cancer becomes a major world health issue." I don't hear a whole lot of people talking about "icebergs in Manhattan" I hear a whole lot of people talking about loss of arable land, and flooding of coastal areas.

Your objection is nothing but a straw man.

Read the scientific literature about global warming. Not whatever you've been reading.

Since I know that if I provide you Science and Nature citations I you won't read them, why don't you start here

TFS

TheFaithfulStone · July 17, 2006

Don't like tree ring reconstruction? How about stalagmites?

Reconstructing hemispheric-scale climates from multiple stalagmite records