The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?  (Read 59492 times)

Offline SkepticSam

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #25 on: 18/09/2009 16:48:06 »
Quote
Are you seriously suggesting that we should be increasing the number of licensed landfill sites? That's never going to fly.

I never said we should increase the number of landfill sites. I said we are running out of licensend sites. But yes, at some point there will be a need for more landfill sites. If not for domestic refuse then to extend fridge mountain and other waste sites. There may well be a local level stink about it, but as long as it's "not in my back yard" people will live with it.

Quote
 ...miles to market". Also, it seems sad that a whole generation has grown up with most not even knowing that fruit & veg is seasonal.  The days of 'anything you want any time you want' are numbered.

Not as long as people want cheap food it not. Miles to market is just a fancy as is locally grown fruit, veg and reared farm produce. There is a small market for these goods but only to those willing to pay the high prices. The reason big supermarkets thrive is because we are poorer in real terms and need to watch the pennies. People want 2 for 1 on their veg and don't care about the farmer, they just want or need cheap food.

Quote
Although in a ideal world, we could have recycling-related rebates (or fines - the old carrot or stick argument) to encourage households.  In reality though, can you imagine the increase in fly tipping?

The household waste recycling rebate is easy. If we can already have smart bins that tell the local authority the weight of refuse in our black bins it's easy to do the same for our green bins.

Fly tipping will increase as people are forced to use smaller "friendlier" bins.

Edit: post modified to correct a quote.
« Last Edit: 18/09/2009 16:50:13 by SkepticSam »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #26 on: 22/09/2009 14:25:29 »
I never said we should increase the number of landfill sites. ... But yes, at some point [I am saying] there will be a need for more landfill sites.
These two statement contradict each other, don't they?

Quote
If not for domestic refuse then to extend fridge mountain ...as long as it's "not in my back yard" people will live with it.
That depends on how many more are needed. People are already moaning about landfills near to their homes. I can't imagine any new site going through without some NIMBY action. Fridges, etc should probably be made the responsibility of the manufactures to recycle -so encouraging more green design in the first place.

Quote
Miles to market is just a fancy [term for local produce]. ... The reason big supermarkets thrive is because we are poorer in real terms. ... [People] don't care about the farmer, they just want or need cheap food.
"we are poorer in real terms" - compared to when? Those in work (still the vast majority) are averagely earning about what they were 2 years ago. Yes, utilities & fuel have risen substantially for maybe 5 years, but most wage packets have more or less followed suit. The supermarket monopolies having taken hold since the 80s meant that our bills (for subsistence foods) have been kept low.  Thus, "the days of 'anything you want any time you want' are numbered"(my quote) as consumers are beginning to loose this shot-term luxury.

Quote
The household waste recycling rebate is easy. If we can already have smart bins that tell the local authority the weight of refuse in our black bins it's easy to do the same for our green bins. Fly tipping will increase as people are forced to use smaller "friendlier" bins.
It's not a question of ease of implementation, it's what will happen if councils introduce sliding scales of charges - that is many households will put the minimum in the bins, then dump the rest. Short of an Orwellian state where councils know what you bought & thus how much rubbish/recycling you'll produce, packaging waste is only controllable at source - supermarkets, etc. Forcing people to use smaller bins will indeed be encouraging fly-tipping, just as will charging by weight.
« Last Edit: 22/09/2009 14:42:12 by peppercorn »
 

Offline SkepticSam

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #27 on: 22/09/2009 21:45:54 »
Thanks for the reply.

I never said we should increase the number of landfill sites. ... But yes, at some point [I am saying] there will be a need for more landfill sites.
These two statement contradict each other, don't they?


My mistake. It's possibly the way I wrote it but I was trying to say that I didn't think I said we SHOULD increase the number of landfill sites. Although I think we will, at some point, have to.


Quote
If not for domestic refuse then to extend fridge mountain ...as long as it's "not in my back yard" people will live with it.
That depends on how many more are needed. People are already moaning about landfills near to their homes. I can't imagine any new site going through without some NIMBY action. Fridges, etc should probably be made the responsibility of the manufactures to recycle -so encouraging more green design in the first place.[/quote]

I don't think we will know how many more are needed until we need them. People moan and vote with their pockets. given the choice of greater fines for too much waste, they will live with more landfill sites. You are correct that the NIMBY action will be there but no matter what the proposal is be it Coal fired powerstation, nuclear powerstations or just landfill there will be a NIMBY action to suit.

Quote
Miles to market is just a fancy [term for local produce]. ... The reason big supermarkets thrive is because we are poorer in real terms. ... [People] don't care about the farmer, they just want or need cheap food.
"we are poorer in real terms" - compared to when? Those in work (still the vast majority) are averagely earning about what they were 2 years ago. Yes, utilities & fuel have risen substantially for maybe 5 years, but most wage packets have more or less followed suit. The supermarket monopolies having taken hold since the 80s meant that our bills (for subsistence foods) have been kept low.  Thus, "the days of 'anything you want any time you want' are numbered"(my quote) as consumers are beginning to loose this shot-term luxury.[/quote

Yes utilities and fuel have risen but so have local and government taxation. For the growing number of unemployed or those in minimum wage jobs I believe they are poorer than they were. These are IMO the backbone of the supermarkets policies on low prices and 2 for 1 offers. No supermarket is going to change policies and stop selling cheap food.


Quote
The household waste recycling rebate is easy. If we can already have smart bins that tell the local authority the weight of refuse in our black bins it's easy to do the same for our green bins. Fly tipping will increase as people are forced to use smaller "friendlier" bins.
It's not a question of ease of implementation, it's what will happen if councils introduce sliding scales of charges - that is many households will put the minimum in the bins, then dump the rest. Short of an Orwellian state where councils know what you bought & thus how much rubbish/recycling you'll produce, packaging waste is only controllable at source - supermarkets, etc. Forcing people to use smaller bins will indeed be encouraging fly-tipping, just as will charging by weight.

[/quote]

Do we not live in a semiorwellian state already? A sharing of data bases would allow any gov. agency or department to know who much you earn, what you out goings are and what and where you bought anything on your credit or debit card. Not to mention the fact the you are cought on CCTV throughout your day.



Just a thought: it would seem that we have strayed from the initial topic question, would you be happy to continue here or start a new, seperate topic?
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #28 on: 24/09/2009 14:06:14 »
Just a thought: it would seem that we have strayed from the initial topic question, would you be happy to continue here or start a new, seperate topic?
Sure! We should move it to Just Chat!
What are we calling this new topic?
Maybe-'What's gone wrong with the direction of green policies and green advertising?'

Meanwhile I might try & remember what the original question here was!
 

Offline SkepticSam

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #29 on: 27/09/2009 18:38:09 »
Call me mystic meg if you like but trying to have a sensible discussion in just chat can't happen. You will have a few good posts and then it will be lost in thenoise of people posting general chit chat.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #30 on: 28/09/2009 11:26:43 »
Call me mystic meg if you like but trying to have a sensible discussion in just chat can't happen. You will have a few good posts and then it will be lost in thenoise of people posting general chit chat.
mmmm, looks like you're right!
   
Is 'being green' being hijacked by policy-makers and advertisers?
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #31 on: 01/11/2009 01:14:28 »
Chris:

Don't waste your time disussing 'human caused' clobal warming. First, Warm is better then cold. Ask the Vikings who got frozen out of Greenland. Second, CO2 has varied from 3000 ppm during dynosaur era to the much lesser levels seen now.  Over that entire span the climate Has swung from Sauna To Ice Age to the moderate climate we have today.

We are very near a climate optimum now. A bit warmer would be a comfort. However, the Carbonista Cult wants to cool things off.  As if they are heading for the North Slope of Alaska to escape the excessive heat of Malibu. 

The dumb son of a bitches.  The cold era after the midieval warming, if I recall my history chronologically, exterminate about one half the entire European population.  But if you live in Malibu, who's counting.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #32 on: 01/11/2009 13:37:41 »
Chris:

Don't waste your time disussing 'human caused' clobal warming. First, Warm is better then cold. Ask the Vikings who got frozen out of Greenland. Second, CO2 has varied from 3000 ppm during dynosaur era to the much lesser levels seen now.  Over that entire span the climate Has swung from Sauna To Ice Age to the moderate climate we have today.

We are very near a climate optimum now. A bit warmer would be a comfort. However, the Carbonista Cult wants to cool things off.  As if they are heading for the North Slope of Alaska to escape the excessive heat of Malibu. 

The dumb son of a bitches.  The cold era after the midieval warming, if I recall my history chronologically, exterminate about one half the entire European population.  But if you live in Malibu, who's counting.
It's always interesting to see someone who can take account of the other person's point of view.
For example I'm particulalr impressed by your concern for people living in places like Bangladesh or Tuvalu. Presumably you count them among "The dumb son of a bitches".
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #33 on: 04/11/2009 21:38:03 »
peppercorn - Christopher Johnson

"What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?" The question is moot because the earth has been cooling for nearly a decade. Further, sunspot cycle 24 has been sleeping for nearly three years.  If this trend keeps up you will need warmer cloths.

I reference you to the Maunder Minnimum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #34 on: 05/11/2009 02:12:16 »
Impressive :)

Let me see. "The only accurate statement that can be provided is "less than we thought it was 10 years ago.""

And  "We cannot SUSTAIN our energy needs or life style without fossil fuels."

And Awh :)

Sounds like you're building yourself a mutual little circle of 'skepticism' here.

Well, don't let reality disturb you.
feature=player_embedded

And this.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-02-25-warming_N.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/21/eco.warmingantarctic/index.html

State of the Climate Global Analysis August 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=8&submitted=Get+Report

If you're living in the States, check this.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report

"In the United States, the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 mandates that every four years an assessment of the impacts of global change in the U.S. be conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Responding to this mandate, the USGCRP carried out during the late 1990s the first National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change in the United States. Between 2004 and 2009, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which incorporated the USGCRP, produced a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products(SAPs)."

And all of those reports are actually optimistic :)
Whether you like them or not, they lean to the optimistic so called 'neutral side' as supported by all scientists but a very select few today.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=25747.msg276353#msg276353
« Last Edit: 05/11/2009 02:20:08 by yor_on »
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #35 on: 05/11/2009 04:58:56 »
I am thankful that none of my colleagues or professors rely on Youtube, USAToday, or CNN for any of their data and evidence in their climate studies.

NOAA on the other hand is an amazingly useful source for data (I use it daily...in fact, I am downloading from the NCDC paleoclimate database as I type), but the climate report that you posted fails to mention the portion of warming that is anthropogenic.

As far as .gov and .org websites, treat them with a skeptical eye...politics and science do not mix...at all.
 

Offline Eric A. Taylor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • I before E except after C, unless weird science
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #36 on: 05/11/2009 05:12:51 »
Climate change is something that has been going on sense Earth began. To say it is human caused is like saying humans are responsible for the change in seasons.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it? Human greenhouse emotions are insignificant compared to what happens naturally. Earth's climate is not well understood. I think if you look carefully at the claims you'll realize what's going on. It's nothing but anti-American and anti-west propaganda.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #37 on: 05/11/2009 12:16:09 »
The question is moot because the earth has been cooling for nearly a decade.
Interesting. Do you have a scientific source to support this?

Quote
sunspot cycle 24 has been sleeping for nearly three years.  If this trend keeps up you will need warmer clothes.
I admire your ability to talk about a solar 'trend' of three years, at the same time as dismissing terabytes of scientific data correlating increasing levels of CO2 with climate change.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #38 on: 05/11/2009 12:48:03 »
Climate change is something that has been going on sense Earth began. To say it is human caused is like saying humans are responsible for the change in seasons.
No not at all, really!
Here's a SIMPLE analogy for you:
An oak tree that has been growing for seven times my lifetime has been changing naturally over two centuries.  That doesn't stop me getting a chain-saw and chopping it down.
Now imagine six-billion chainsaws!

Quote
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?
The claims are neither extraordinary or lacking in evidence. CO2 levels have increased by one quarter in a century and CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas.  Just what level of proof are you going to settle for?  Of course there are detractors (a very very few of them real scientists!). There always are when the status quo is challenged.

Quote
Earth's climate is not well understood.
Our climate is incredibly well understood considering how complex it is.

Quote
It's nothing but anti-American and anti-west propaganda.
Eh? When you say anti-west are you aware that the major evidence for GW is being correlated in the 'west'!  A large percentage of it in the US.
If you'd said anti-oil, anti-capitalist or even anti-Republican you may have sounded less paranoid.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2009 12:51:22 by peppercorn »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #39 on: 05/11/2009 19:22:33 »
Is there any chance that people will stfu about sunspots?
They come and go with a period of about 11 years- we know about that.
Saying that they are a cause of climate change is like saying that night time is a cause of climate change.
The climate needs to be measured over a timescal long enough to average out the efect of things like that or they need to be modeled and taken into account.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #40 on: 07/11/2009 13:22:50 »
As has been said by others here, I don’t think it is possible to attribute the extent to which man contributes to climate change.

It is perhaps not so much a scientific problem in the evaluation, as a mathematical one.

The first problem you encounter is ‘where do you start?’ Our very existence, both as a species and as individuals, gives rise to an effect on the eco system, albeit microscopic in the case of the individual. Should this be counted as a contributory factor? Or should we discount this and label it as ‘the natural effect’ of each individual? But can you discount the individual? If you do, must you then discount the family group, the extended family group and so on and so forth. Go down this path and you could say man has no ‘natural effect’ on the eco system. Now we are getting into politics, rather than science or mathematics.

I may be a vegan who grows my own food, has no car, uses no electricity or gas, drinks only water from my own natural spring, lives in a mud hut and recycles everything I use. I buy nothing and waste nothing. I am 100% self sufficient. What is my overall effect on the environment? I inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Do the food plants I grow (given that I grow only sufficient for my own needs and no more) convert that CO2 back into oxygen, or are there insufficient plants for this. I burp and fart. I wee and poo (and that pongs a bit, so there are gases given off). Do these gases contribute to my negative effect?

Surely each individual animal (humans included, regardless of lifestyle) must have a negative effect, which is countered by each individual plant with its positive effect. So if you take a 1 – 10 scale such as this:

- 10:9:8:7:6:5:4:3:2:1:0:1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8:9:10+
        Animals              |           Plants

and place each individual at a point on the negative side according to the effect of a self sufficient individual; you could extrapolate the net effect of the entire human race at ‘natural effect’ level.

Now comes the monumental mathematical task of attributing the following, as a share to each individual, of:-

Extracting minerals, producing the equipment to extract those minerals, producing the machinery to produce the equipment to extract those minerals, producing the machinery to produce the machinery to produce the equipment to extract those minerals. Getting my drift here?

Trucks to move the machinery which is used to produce the machinery which is used to produce the equipment to extract those minerals. Trucks to move the machinery which is used to produce the equipment to extract those minerals. Trucks to move the equipment to extract those minerals. Trucks to move the extracted minerals.

Machinery to produce the trucks to move those extracted minerals.

OK, I won’t go on, but suffice to say this goes on and on and on and can be used for everything we eat, drink, wear, sit on, sleep in, build with, listen to, watch, dispose of………

Take a look around you. What do you see? Some letters, a clock, a pen and pencil, a cup of coffee, a biscuit (cookie), four walls (painted), a window, a carpet, the chair you are sitting on, the clothes you are wearing, your hair (you had it cut the other day with manufactured scissors) and washed over a sink with a shower head that had hot water; and towel dried, maybe even a hair dryer, which had to be manufactured and used electricity, which had to be generated, which needed generators, which ran on mineral oil. Oh yes, and the generators had to be manufactured.

The complexities of modern life mean that everything we have and everything we do adds to our negative effect, which we hope plants, with their positive effect, will offset.

Even a farmer, ploughing his field with an ox drawn plough is having a negative effect. He and his ox are using energy, which requires food and oxygen. They are producing waste, poo, wee, dead cells and CO2. He is wearing clothes which require cotton, wool, wood, rubber, leather and oil. They are made with machines, which require the basic raw materials to make those machines: Minerals. And the plough? Yes that too has to be made from minerals. So we come back to square one.

Would you fancy being the mathematician who tries to work out this lot and all the rest, of course?

OK, you can say I have taken this to the absolute extremes, but then the question I would ask is, ‘where do you start and where is the cut off?’ Because that button on your shirt/blouse, has had a significant impact on your negative contribution, as has that biscuit (cookie) you are about to eat. What went into producing it? For each ingredient (wheat, corn, oats, sugar, nuts, fruit, fats, eggs, milk, water) you must start at the beginning, the minerals to make the ploughs, tractors, seed separators and sowers, fertilisers, insecticides, fungicides, irrigation systems, harvesters, trucks, and then the ovens, baking tins, cooling racks, packing machines and very factory they are made in. The individual packet packaging materials, the bulk packaging packing materials. The trucks that deliver them to the shops, the building and fitting of the shops……… Oh good grief, here we go again!
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #41 on: 12/11/2009 19:28:35 »
Karsten - You wrote: "... running out of fossil fuels will ... probably bring the collapse of modern North American living."  This sounds more like wishfull thinking then fact. The US and China have so much coal we could go on for centuries.  Right now, the US has shifted its coal sources to those with less sulphur. Plenty of that stuff as well.

Karsten - You also wrote: "My friends in Europe and Canada have a difficult time believing how many people in the USA still cling to the perception that humans have very little to do with the problem. They find it laughable."

I can only speculate as to what problem you refer?  My suspicion is these individuals are entirely unaware CO2 is at a near global minimum; the temperature is at a near climate optimum; and the climate has been both warmer and colder in recorded history then it is now.

Do your chuckling freinds have ANY idea what a cooler climate would bring them?  I have little sympathy for those who have not studied history.


 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #42 on: 14/11/2009 17:29:20 »
Pepper - You wrote: "Original question: What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans? It is likely to be, at least a significant amount (say more than half). It is quite likely to be a majority share.

I just ran across this solar output chart that seems to correlate with modern climate trends over a thousand year period up to the year 1900. In 1900 solar output was higher then at any time since about the year 800. Values since 1900 are not shown. I will continue to research this area, especially in regards to cosmic rays. I am unconvinced climatistas even know what is a cosmic ray...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

"Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
« Last Edit: 14/11/2009 17:39:52 by litespeed »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #43 on: 18/11/2009 16:21:44 »
"Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago."
Lit, can you point me to data showing a marked jump in mean global temperatures occurring exactly 70 years ago and continuing to present?  I mean a major one.
Otherwise this data (if totally reliable) is interesting, but nothing more.
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #44 on: 18/11/2009 17:47:45 »
I dont have a lot of time right now, as I have class in about 15 minutes, but I can provide evidence...lots of it.  Ive spent the last few years collecting resources, so this will not be nearly comprehensive.  I can also do a little better than 70 years...I can go back more than 400,000 years, and establish a very long trend.  Ill start with the landmark paper by Gerard Bond.  This particular paper doesnt equate temperature specifically, but it does relate North Atlantic ice rafted debris (IRD) events to solar activity over the past 12,000 years.  IRD events are caused by glacial calving in Greenland, Iceland, and Northern Canada during times of marked glacial growth (cooling events).  As the icebergs calve and spread into the N Atlantic, they carry LOTS of sediment within them that are dropped into the ocean when they melt.  The latitude and concentrations of these glacial sediments in the oceanic cores can tell us a lot about sea temperatures and the extent of glaciation/sea ice.

The citation for the paper is:
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S.,
Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I., Bonani, G., 2001. Persistent solar influence on North
Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294 (5549), 2130–2136.

I encourage you to look it up and read it if you can.  If you cant find it, let me know and I will email it to you.  Bond is a very well respected geologist/climatologist and is considered among the giants in the field.  This paper alone has been cited over 700 times, and this is not even including his works helping to lay the foundations of plate tectonics during the 60's and 70's.  Anyway...enough adoration :)

The black lines are abundances of different IRD sediments in oceanic cores (all originating from different areas of the N Atlantic). The blue lines are 14C concentrations taken from tree rings chronologies if I remember correctly, and the red lines are 10Be concentrations from Greenland ice cores (both proxies for solar activity)



I have much more to post on shorter and longer time scales if you would like to see it in the future. 
« Last Edit: 18/11/2009 17:50:36 by frethack »
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #45 on: 19/11/2009 02:01:07 »
Karsten - You wrote: "... running out of fossil fuels will ... probably bring the collapse of modern North American living."  This sounds more like wishfull thinking then fact. The US and China have so much coal we could go on for centuries.  Right now, the US has shifted its coal sources to those with less sulphur. Plenty of that stuff as well.

Karsten - You also wrote: "My friends in Europe and Canada have a difficult time believing how many people in the USA still cling to the perception that humans have very little to do with the problem. They find it laughable."

I can only speculate as to what problem you refer?  My suspicion is these individuals are entirely unaware CO2 is at a near global minimum; the temperature is at a near climate optimum; and the climate has been both warmer and colder in recorded history then it is now.

Do your chuckling freinds have ANY idea what a cooler climate would bring them?  I have little sympathy for those who have not studied history.


Litespeed: Yes, I ignore coal as a useful fossil fuel in the USA. I cannot imagine our cities being powered by coal-fired power plants or heated with residential coal stoves. Or our cars being moved with coal. Or synthetic fuels being created from coal with nuclear power (which we do not seem to plan to build). Or our food being grown with the help of coal. I thought you had a BIG problem with China using so much coal? Now you suggest that using coal is a solution for the USA? Talk about smog! I am sure we will use coal. We may have to. But it will change the USA and it sure will be much less comfy in this place that revolves around comfort. Oil and gas are easy. Wishful thinking that our civilization will collapse? I hate to be wrong, but in this case I hope I am. For my daughter's sake at a minimum. Please don't be rude and assume that I wish a dramatic an involuntary change in our society to happen. Just because I fear it may be does not mean I hope it to be.

(By the way, if I use future tense and the word "probably" I surely do not claim to present a fact.)

As for climate change, I trust professional science organizations rather than individual scientists. Somewhere you can find a scientist to provide data for almost anything. Not reliable. Not so with large professional science organizations. They are careful with what they say. And I do prefer to err on the safe side. I have not seen data that tells me that burning LESS fossil fuels results in damage to our environment. On the other hand, I turn on my car in my closed garage with me in it and can find out within minutes how dangerous this is. Of course this is simplifying the problem, but as I said, I tend to err on the safe side.

As for my chuckling friends, they know that we once upon a time had it hotter and at other times colder here. What does that have to do with anything? Of course we live in good times considering the planetary history. Well, this might actually depend on where you live. It is easy for a North American to observe the climate, consider the concerns about global climate change a bunch of hog wash, and promote and continue to enjoy their excessive life-style. It reminds me of goats and gardeners. Anyhow..., the global climate today is certainly pleasant for many. Why not respond to change in either direction, colder or warmer? Some people care about what happens to other people. And if what they do is wrong they try to change something. And they do find it hard to believe how desperately some Americans cling to straws that let them believe nothing is wrong (and continue guilt-free to consume, waste, and trash at world-record levels). Whether the European life-style is sustainable either is another story. I am sure it is pleasant to point at North America which is creating more damage than Europe. Always good to know someone worse than oneself. And I am also sure you can find rather strange-thinking Europeans.

That does not change that the USA needs to rethink how they live.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2009 02:03:36 by Karsten »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #46 on: 19/11/2009 19:20:23 »
Karsten

The planetary situation is just fine, and I will explain why. First, population will decline later this century. Specifically, as I posted elsewhere, the planetary population fertility rate is ALREADY approaching replacement level. More importantly, the industrial world AND China are already BELOW replacement level. [Further, I don't have any children so I am A Green Hero.]

In addition, this CO2 nonsense is just that. As I have pointed out elsewhere, plantetary CO2 is near an all time low, AND solar radiance is near an eight thousand year high. In other words, the climate is just about as good as it can get.  A little bit warmer might even be better, but I will not quibble. Anyone with any sense of history within historical times should understand this. Anyone with any sense of planetary history should understand the threat to life on earth is cold weather, not warm weather.

Further, you wrote: "It is easy for a North American to observe the climate, consider the concerns about global climate change a bunch of hog wash, and promote and continue to enjoy their excessive life-style."  First, even if it is getting warmer, that is a whole lot better then getting colder.

As for your Amused European Friends? Europe does not have a very good track record on just about anything that might improve the lot of The Unwashed Masses. Fortunately, the English Channel has, for the most part, kept European Political Emotions on the other side.  On the other hand, Britain seems increasingly contaminated by the EU.

It does not matter much. Continental Europe will be banging its collective head towards Mecca in less then two hundred years anyway.


 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #47 on: 19/11/2009 20:53:09 »

In addition, this CO2 nonsense is just that. As I have pointed out elsewhere, plantetary CO2 is near an all time low, AND solar radiance is near an eight thousand year high. In other words, the climate is just about as good as it can get.  A little bit warmer might even be better, but I will not quibble. Anyone with any sense of history within historical times should understand this. Anyone with any sense of planetary history should understand the threat to life on earth is cold weather, not warm weather.

Further, you wrote: "It is easy for a North American to observe the climate, consider the concerns about global climate change a bunch of hog wash, and promote and continue to enjoy their excessive life-style."  First, even if it is getting warmer, that is a whole lot better then getting colder.


Why does the AAAS not agree with you regarding the "CO2 nonsense"? Are you one of those individual scientists I cannot trust?

You seem to be one of those Americans who look at the climate change with little worries since the change will not effect you much either way. It has been said before, 95% of the world does not live in the USA and may have to worry about what goes on. I hope the world does not judge US-Americans solely based on the carefree image you present.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #48 on: 19/11/2009 21:01:52 »
litespeed, why do you keep regurgitating the same misguided beliefs across approximately 762,000 other threads?

Quote
plantetary CO2 is near an all time low


This is a misleading statement. 'all time' is not really relevant to us considering homo sapiens have only been around 50 thousand years or so. There is evidence to suggest CO2 levels have not been this high for 2 million years.

It seems all I need to do to debate you now is quote myself from the aforementioned 762,000 other global warming threads you've participated in.

It is not only the level of CO2 that is a problem, but the rate at which it is increasing. Slow increases like those that have occured in history give life time to evolve and adapt, and ocean chemistry to buffer against ph decrease, but at the current rate this will be alot more difficult.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/09/2510699.htm
Quote
Dr Howard says that over time, the ocean may be able to counteract acidity by dissolving accumulated shells of dead marine organisms on the ocean floor, thus raising ocean pH and its ability to take up CO2.

But he says this will take a long time and come at the cost of living marine organisms.

"The buffering mechanisms in the ocean are quite slow compared to the rate at which we are putting fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere and into the ocean.," he said.

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news_stories/coralfutures.html
Quote
“When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm
Quote
New calculations made by marine chemists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) suggest that low-oxygen "dead zones" in the ocean could expand significantly over the next century. These predictions are based on the fact that, as more and more carbon dioxide dissolves from the atmosphere into the ocean, marine animals will need more oxygen to survive.


Quote
the climate is just about as good as it can get.  A little bit warmer might even be better

I have already argued against this astonishingly ignorant statement here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22612.msg282336#msg282336

Quote
Anyone with any sense of history within historical times should understand this. Anyone with any sense of planetary history should understand the threat to life on earth is cold weather, not warm weather.

One minute you refer to 'all time' history, then you want to try to make examples of human history. If by this statement you are reffering to your comparison of today's climate with that of roman times I have already addressed this in this post - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26664.msg283276#msg283276
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #49 on: 19/11/2009 21:08:46 »
Quote
the threat to life on earth is cold weather, not warm weather

LS, your like a stuck record! And the rest of your post, your overly dismissive attitude to other posters and, in places apparent close-to-racist attitudes seem most out of place on a science website.

You my friend are a bigot!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #49 on: 19/11/2009 21:08:46 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums