Climate Change: Man-Made or Natural?

Submitted by: davymid 6 years ago in Science
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page10375.html

The USGS reckons all the volcanoes on the planet emit the same CO2 footprint as Florida. Why is it always Florida?
There are 37 comments:
Male 17,511
Tetragramma: Ya right, that`s why everyone owns their own cow, NOT.

So called `Green Energy` isn`t profitable on it`s own, it`s heavily subsidized by the government and that`s the only reason it exists right now. Make it practical and profitable, without subsidies, and there won`t be a problem.

Even then, `Climate Change` is not anthropogenic (caused by human activity) and recent discoveries at CERN have proved that the sun has a much larger role in regulating our climate then was originally theorized. Link
0
Reply
Male 65
Green energy is good for an economy- transporting and making things requires energy, which would be less expensive if there was a continuous supply (solar, wind, thermal) rather than an increasingly more expensive commodity (oil). Opposing green energy for economic reasons is like saying that milk is cheap enough to not justify buying a cow when the cow is cheaper in the long run.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
patchgrabber: I don`t have a problem with researching clean energy, I have a problem with it being forced down our throats at the cost of our economy.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
" The environmental movement wants to end all use of `fossil fuel` by any and all means necessary. They aren`t afraid to lie, cheat, and steal tax money (in the form of grants) to meet that goal."

So your proposal is to do what exactly? Not research renewable energy and keep using fossil fuels until their price skyrockets and then we run out with nothing to fall back on? Typical right wing thinking, can`t see more than five feet in front of them.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
skine: 200 years is a large amount of time, but if the graph had included even earlier temperatures, like the medieval warm period, you would see that the earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is now, It`s cyclical. Now it`s leveling off and perhaps perhaps about to cool off again.

Gerry: As to your question as to why ? The quick answer is money, but it goes beyond that. The environmental movement wants to end all use of `fossil fuel` by any and all means necessary. They aren`t afraid to lie, cheat, and steal tax money (in the form of grants) to meet that goal.

Scaremongering `global warming` is worth billions of dollars in investments to `green energy` companies, like Solyndra that just went bankrupt, without the scare even more will go bankrupt because they can`t be profitable otherwise.
0
Reply
Male 719
Crackr: You posted two graphs. The first shows temperatures rising relatively steadily between 1800 and 2000. The second shows temperatures remaining roughly the same between 2001 and 2010.

So what your graph actually shows is that temperatures have been rising steadily between 1800 and 2010.

This would seem to be at odds with you stating that the Earth is not warming.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Climate change is the result of the global warming which is produced because of the core of the Earth is warming up, not because of the silly primates that goes by the name of Humans[/quote]
The core of the earth is warming up? F*ck me gently, that`s even more retarded than anything Crckrjak says, if such a thing were possible.

Look, there comes a point where you have to listen to the professional scientists. Yeah, those guys.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Climate change is the result of the global warming which is produced because of the core of the Earth is warming up, not because of the silly primates that goes by the name of Humans
0
Reply
Male 616
All about money, nothing more.
0
Reply
Male 4
@CrakrJak Then put those events on as part of the average and see what the data says. Don`t leave out periods of time "just because" to better prove your argument. Also, the "little ice age" was a period of mild cooling that occurred after the "medieval warm period" so if the two were also included in the time range, it wouldn`t change the mean much.

Also please don`t confuse isolated areas of geographic cooling due to an overall increase in global mean temps. It is predicted if global warming continues so that the ocean temps increase enough so that the gulf stream stops, most of Europe`s climate would cool due to the lack of heat that normally comes through the gulf stream. In this instance, global warming (increase in global temps that change ocean temperatures) would cause localized cooling (climate change in Europe).
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Well Rick Perry explained it like any drunken red-neck would. It`s a love for government grant money don`t ya know Gerry1of1? That explains everything to a simpleton.
0
Reply
Male 40,254

Question for the Floor.

If in fact Global Warming is a conspiracy, I ask "why?"
Why should scientists around the world independantly lie about study after study and years of documented research? What would it benefit them as compared to the risk of being exposed?

Motive for a conspiracy?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Actually, there`s a movement of scientists that are saying the whole warming thing is real, but it would be happening even if we weren`t here. Their view is that the Earth has an ambient temperature of around 110 F but was cooled after the ice age...so, we`re just slowly climbing back to our ambient temperature. The view is still fairly frowned upon, but is gaining acceptance.[/quote]

That is an extraordinary claim. You haven`t provided any evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence, so at present your claim is bull.

Anyone can make any claims about anything. For example:

There`s a movement of wildebeest that meet every second Friday of the month to discuss ancient Greek poetry. It`s a secret movement, but knowledge of it is spreading.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Hiem: Pre-1950s we went through times of cooling, ever hear of `the little ice age` ? or the blizzards of the 1810s and 1830s ?

Climate has to be looked at in context, and that context is often skewed by researchers looking to make a buck off government grants.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
LazyMe: IT came from `BEST`s own data, compiled by the global warming policy institute.

If you had cared to look closely at the graph you`d know that already.
0
Reply
Male 265
@CrakrJak

OMG you`re like totally right. The US has snow already this year, so much for global warming. I mean we all know that we should look at short term graphs for changes in the climate.

0
Reply
Male 719
"we are not actually adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in almost all cases, we are only adding a carbon atom to the oxygen molecule that is already in the atmosphere"

I have the feeling that you don`t understand what the words you just wrote actually mean.
0
Reply
Female 685
Why is it Florida? Ummm......NASA, anyone? DUH. Plus all that air conditioning.
0
Reply
Male 4
@CrakrJak I made an account just to point out the stupidity in those graphs you put up.

The top graph shows a time range from 1800 to 2000+, while the lower graph only shows 2001-2010 data. If the lower graph was to be set from 1800 data as well, the trend line would not look like that. In fact the lower graph shows that since the 1950-1980 average, mean global temps have gone UP 0.75C. That image you posted was meant to distract people who don`t know how to read graphs.

Also why would they pick average temps of 1950-1980 as the Y axis unless they were trying to make others look poorly? If you are going to use a baseline for a temp chart, either use a baseline that is the average temperatures pre-industrial revolution (heavy CO2 emissions begins) or average global temperatures since the dawn of time (data from ice core samples). Either way that image is poorly constructed with the purpose to mislead.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Actually, there`s a movement of scientists that are saying the whole warming thing is real, but it would be happening even if we weren`t here.[/quote] -----------
Really? Are they real scientists or are they republicans?
0
Reply
Male 40,254

So many theories.
It could be man made.
It coudl be natural cycle.
It could be man made AND nature combined.

I think it`s combination of Rick Parry and Bill O`Rilley outgassing.

0
Reply
Male 77
Can I point out that we are not actually adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in almost all cases, we are only adding a carbon atom to the oxygen molecule that is already in the atmosphere and is already a significant greenhouse gas. this means there needs to be a huge reduction in the expected heating effect from carbon dioxide.
0
Reply
Male 219
Actually, there`s a movement of scientists that are saying the whole warming thing is real, but it would be happening even if we weren`t here. Their view is that the Earth has an ambient temperature of around 110 F but was cooled after the ice age...so, we`re just slowly climbing back to our ambient temperature. The view is still fairly frowned upon, but is gaining acceptance.
0
Reply
Male 616
That`s good, when you don`t have a valid argument. just fall back on a personal attack.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
The fact is CrakrJak is not a climate scientist he`s a redneck on disability. If he were he were a climate scientist he would agree with the science.
0
Reply
Male 605
@Crackr rather than go into evidence, I think it`ll save a lot of time to just say: No, your wrong I`m afraid. I`d love you to be right, but your not.
0
Reply
Male 616
Rotting vegetation,including trees produce almost all of the annual CO2 produced. Man is responsible for between 3 and 6% of all CO2.
0
Reply
Male 81
In the UK the news always use Wales as an examplar. Forests equivalent to the size of wales are destroyed everyday. An oil spill the size of Wales, etc...

I`m just waiting for the day that it is actually f-ing Wales that is destroyed, bunch of inbred leek-munching sheep-shafters...
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@Revolutioniz,

Agreed.
0
Reply
Male 910
Leave it to Crakrjak to further demonstrate his stupidity.
0
Reply
Male 977
America`s penis, that`s why.
0
Reply
Male 215
@CrakrJak

From the BEST faq:

"Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years."
0
Reply
Male 1,239
could just as easily support the idea that the rise IS directly related to us.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
My personal theory is that the global warming trend is part of a larger scale "seasonal" cycle we aren`t currently aware of due to the cycle spanning longer than our short recorded history. I admit this is a very loose theory and that even I am not truly convinced of this for any real reason. I`m not stupid, however, and know that as a species what we are doing is having far greater an impact than any species before us and that any attempt to drastically change the environment may not be completely necessary it certainly can`t hurt to limit out impact. All the same, Crakr, once again you post one very small side of the issue as if it is the whole truth of the lot. What`s amazing this time is a 200 year trend of rising with a 10 year span of steadiness at the top of the rise. I find it amusing that you use this as an argument against global warming when awareness of the issue really became huge in the late 90`s / early 00`s. This stall in conjunction with worldwide awareness c
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] It`s not happening at all, actually. [/quote]
From which of your orifices did that come from?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
It`s not happening at all, actually.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Link: Climate Change: Man-Made or Natural? [Rate Link] - The USGS reckons all the volcanoes on the planet emit the same CO2 footprint as Florida. Why is it always Florida?
0
Reply