Cainkane1
Philosopher
Mars is currently experiencing climate change as the nitrogen ice is melting leaving the water ice entirely solid. Could at least some elements of earths climate change be due to natural phenomena?
Are humans entirely responsible for climate change?
- Thread starter Cainkane1
- Start date
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
1978 called. They want their climate change 101 curriculum back.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,864
Apparently it was 1977. 
Mars is not warming globally.
And from where did the science deniers get this latest distortion:
Not to mention: of course human burning of fossil fuels is not the only thing that has affected climate warming.
Mars is not warming globally.
And from where did the science deniers get this latest distortion:
Not to mention: of course human burning of fossil fuels is not the only thing that has affected climate warming.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that human activities are not causing climate change. And the science is pretty clear that they are.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Does a 12 ounce steak still weigh 12 ounces if the butcher takes his thumb off the scale?
My background is Geology, and changes regularly on the vast geologic time-scale. The difference is that the current climate indicators are not being driven by massive volcanic action, and we can back-trace atmospheric carbon content to have a fairly accurate picture to base the current concern upon. In short, the warming of the ocean has no natural, biospheric source, and that leaves humans as the main suspects.
You can throw around Mars, and the orbital cycles of the earth in relation to the sun all you want, but these things have been reviewed. No scientist wants to be the bad guy who ruins the party, and no scientist wants to be known as the Chicken Little of Climatology, so they're careful about their work.
The problem is real. What to do about it is where the real debate needs to happen.
My background is Geology, and changes regularly on the vast geologic time-scale. The difference is that the current climate indicators are not being driven by massive volcanic action, and we can back-trace atmospheric carbon content to have a fairly accurate picture to base the current concern upon. In short, the warming of the ocean has no natural, biospheric source, and that leaves humans as the main suspects.
You can throw around Mars, and the orbital cycles of the earth in relation to the sun all you want, but these things have been reviewed. No scientist wants to be the bad guy who ruins the party, and no scientist wants to be known as the Chicken Little of Climatology, so they're careful about their work.
The problem is real. What to do about it is where the real debate needs to happen.
I don't think any climate change activists or scientists deny that the climate changes naturally and that natural changes may play a part in the current warming trend. Human activity plays a far larger role in the current warming, but there may still be a natural component as well.
The idea that climate change activists and believers deny any natural role in climate change is just a straw-man, one that has been debunked many many times.
The idea that climate change activists and believers deny any natural role in climate change is just a straw-man, one that has been debunked many many times.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
Certainly natural climate change can and has occurred. What's different now is the RATE of change. That's caused by man.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Actually there are many elements to Earth's natural climate change.
The problem with the argument though is that according to those naturally occurring elements taken as a whole, we should be cooling right now on a long gradual slide into the next glaciation period of our ice age.
We are not cooling though. There is empirical evidence that multiple direct human impacts combined with feedbacks in the system triggered by those impacts are causing the temperature to rise instead of fall.
So technically you are right in so much that those are natural feedbacks and we only indirectly triggered them, but taken as a whole since we are warming instead of cooling, actually over 100% of global warming is anthropogenic.
You need to go back to basics and rethink what causes Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to begin with.
- We are burning fossil fuels and emitting massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 mostly but also some CH4 and a few other greenhouse gasses.
- We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. (mostly grasslands)
- By putting more in the atmosphere and removing less, there is no other place for the excess to go but the oceans. They are acidifying due to absorbing just part of the excess. (roughly 1/2)
- That still leaves roughly 1/2 of emissions that are building up in the atmosphere and creating an increased greenhouse effect. (from ~280 ppm to 412+ppm CO2)
- Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many economically viable renewables as current technology allows. Please note that most current forms of ethanol gas additive are not beneficial because they further degrade the sequestration side of the carbon cycle and take more fossil fuels to produce than they offset.
- Change agricultural methods to high yield regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
- Implement large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.
In short we need to reduce carbon in and increase carbon out of the atmosphere to restore balance to the carbon cycle.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Humans are partially responsible for climate change.
After all, the Earth went through all sorts of climate changes long, long, long before humans were around.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Yes Humans are partially responsible for climate change, but the particular sort of climate changes we are experiencing right now, global warming, is 100% the result of uniquely human impact.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
This.
The sad thing is, if we had only taken heed of the warnings earlier we could now take credit for preventing climate change, by producing just enough AGW to cancel out the natural cooling. Then future generations would be thanking us instead of cursing us.
But of course that could not happen. We like to think of ourselves as being superior to other animals due to our greater intellect and conscious thought, but we aren't that different. Given the choice between dealing with a problem we have created or denying it exists to avoid the 'inconvenience', most of us would choose the latter - especially if it threatened our personal fortunes.
That's a disingenuous question and you know it. Why don't you tell us the real reason you won't accept the science of AGW.Cainkane1 said:
Venom
Philosopher
Well put.
EHocking
Philosopher
Fortunately we have our best people on it. Our best people.
Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are, based on all statistics.’ And it’s even getting better because I agree with that. I want the best water, the cleanest water —crystal clean, crystal clean air.
Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are, based on all statistics.’ And it’s even getting better because I agree with that. I want the best water, the cleanest water —crystal clean, crystal clean air.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Sorry but that is not correct.
An event such as a volcanic eruption releases far more pollutants into the atmosphere than do us humans.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I thought the term of art du jour was "global climate change". Which might be warming or cooling here and there depending on the latest developments in the settled science.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
You have been reading propaganda spread by the merchants of doubt.
Here is the real science:
Yes there is volcanism. It's literally at minimum several orders of magnitude too small to be the cause of the warming we are seeing now. Yes it can release CO2 and many other pollutants. Some actually reflect sunlight and cause cooling for a short time. However, taking all the volcanism into effect, including all the CO2 and other aerosols ash etc.... The impact is well studied and accounted for and without human impact we would be cooling still. Same goes for other natural climate forcings and feedbacks like the milankovitch cycles
Try again, but be warned: The science backs my position and you will lose.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Anthropogenic Global Warming is the average of everything combined. Regional, local and micro climates can vary, but the average taken over the entire planet is dramatically rising. In fact it is rising so fast it is about 100 times faster than what ultimately caused the largest known mass extinction of planet, the Permian extinction.
Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction
At about 6:30 on is a great graphic showing how the Siberian flood basalt eruptions ignited the fossil carbon and released the CO2.... and caused the extinction of most life on the planet.
That was natural. The volcanism we have now is no where even close to that. But even if it was that...it is still 100 times slower rate of destruction than what we humans are doing now.
It amazes me to still see people so grossly uninformed on basic science and on what people who understand climate change (the scientists who study it and the activists who work to make the changes needed to mitigate it) actually believe and understand.
Global warming is climate change. Relative to this context, the terms have been interchangeable for decades, "Climate Change" was actually used in reference to global warming BEFORE "Global Warming" was used. And yes, that's proven.
And as Snoopy's nemesis has pointed out, the vulcanism theory has been disproved, or more accurately, was never believed by any reputable scientist to begin with because it it was never more than a Wild Donkey Guess by denialists grasping as straws. The science showing that vulcanism contributes far less pollutants than humans is well established.
Global carbon dioxide emission to the atmosphere by volcanoes
Volcanoes can affect the Earth's climate.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
You all are quite correct.
Sorry about that! My mistake.
I did some checking as well and I found that while volcanic activity does contribute to the air pollution problem and green house gases, the contribution from volcanic activity is far less than that produced by human activity.
Specifically, I found this bit of data from the USGS citation to be most striking:
Yearly CO2
Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate) = 0.26 Gt/y
United States 2015 = 4.99 Gt/y
Wow! That sure is an astounding disparity.
Sorry for the trouble and thanks much for the correction.
Belz...
Fiend God
Ok so maybe humans aren't 100% responsible for the changes.
So what? They are at least partly responsible and we should address that to curb further change!
Belz...
Fiend God
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Not the one I was looking for, but this gives the same message.....
EHocking
Philosopher
“I believe that there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways. Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming. That wasn’t working. Then it was called climate change. Now it’s actually called extreme weather — because with extreme weather, you can’t miss,” Trump said on the morning show.
You might want to rethink your current source of environmental science.Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Please refer to Post #19 and you will see that I already issued a correction.
Ah, yes. Almost as though one can change one's mind when presented with new information.
It's still scary that the volcanic eruption reduced overall carbon dioxide emissions, due to the flying bans.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Climate science doe not say humans are entirely responsible for climate change. Humans are responsible for the dominant driver (rising CO2 levels) of the current global warming. Climate science includes all natural phenomena - some of which decrease global temperatures. Climate science has evaluated these natural phenomena and found that they are not the dominant driver.
The myth of global warming on Mars is irrelevant to Earth's global warming.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A side note on that figure. That is for CO2 only, however volcanoes also emit ash and sulfur. A volcanic eruption can measurably cool global temperatures: Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.[3]
"National Academy of Sciences
Published on Jun 1, 2015
NAS member Richard Alley presents on 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2, during the Symposium—Earths, Moons, Mars & Stars at the National Academy of Sciences 152nd Annual Meeting."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
Published on Jun 1, 2015
NAS member Richard Alley presents on 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2, during the Symposium—Earths, Moons, Mars & Stars at the National Academy of Sciences 152nd Annual Meeting."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
An interesting lecture. My last post made me notice "If volcanoes got together, they would rule the world" but they do not so they are "noisemakers". Richard Alley goes through possible drivers of climate change and we come down to the greenhouse effect as a "big deal". Then the different ways of measuring past CO2. Faint Young Sun "paradox" resolved by greenhouse effect. Rock-weathering thermostat and its confirmation via a "snowball" Earth. Plate tectonics can change the setting of the thermostat. CO2 increases as causes of mass extinctions. Ice ages not caused by CO2.
The overall message is that CO2 has emerged as the "control knob" of climate.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 28,828
Hey, if it's not our fault that the Earth is warming, we can just sit back and do nothing!
I'm sure the real culprit will take care of the problem.
I'm sure the real culprit will take care of the problem.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
ah yes the quick change back to warming. We are 100% responsible for global warming.
Thus you can't get off so easily. We did it, and it is our duty to fix it.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
short answer: yes humans are responsible for all climate chance since ~1960. There are a couple natural anomalies to which ~1/3 to 1/2 of the warming from 1900 - 1940 can be attributed.
Longer answer
The orbital cycles that drive long term changes are in a cooling phase that date back more then 5000 years. This cooling trend would have been expected to continue for another 500 or so years, but reverse before an actual glaciation could occur.
The two shorter term natural forcing’s: Volcanic activity is mostly neutral. There is a very slight negative trend from slight variation in solar output if you go back to the 1950’s but since ~1970 these are also neutral.
All the above are small compared to the human induced changes below:
Ozone recovery. Ozone is a greenhouse gas and Ozone depletion prior to ~1990 was created a small amount of cooling. Post 1990 Ozone recovery to original; levels would cause a rebound and similar amount of warming but there is quite a way to go for full recovery.
Methane – short lived (~10 years) but stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It’s responsible for about 1/3 of current increase in climate forcing (warming) but since it’s short lived it doesn’t accumulate the same way CO2 does so that fraction will drop over time.
CO2 – Responsible for ~60% of current increases in climate forcing (warming)
Aerosols – Like Methane, these are relatively short lived but very strong climate forcing. In this case they exert a strong cooling influence and have reduced the amount of energy the earth receives from the Sun by ~2% - 4% since 1900. (AKA “global dimming) The cooling effect of Aerosols is more or less the same magnitude as the warming effect of CO2, however because they are much shorter lived they can only “cancel” the impact of CO2 if aerosol emissions increase much more rapidly then CO2 emissions do.
Longer answer
The orbital cycles that drive long term changes are in a cooling phase that date back more then 5000 years. This cooling trend would have been expected to continue for another 500 or so years, but reverse before an actual glaciation could occur.
The two shorter term natural forcing’s: Volcanic activity is mostly neutral. There is a very slight negative trend from slight variation in solar output if you go back to the 1950’s but since ~1970 these are also neutral.
All the above are small compared to the human induced changes below:
Ozone recovery. Ozone is a greenhouse gas and Ozone depletion prior to ~1990 was created a small amount of cooling. Post 1990 Ozone recovery to original; levels would cause a rebound and similar amount of warming but there is quite a way to go for full recovery.
Methane – short lived (~10 years) but stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It’s responsible for about 1/3 of current increase in climate forcing (warming) but since it’s short lived it doesn’t accumulate the same way CO2 does so that fraction will drop over time.
CO2 – Responsible for ~60% of current increases in climate forcing (warming)
Aerosols – Like Methane, these are relatively short lived but very strong climate forcing. In this case they exert a strong cooling influence and have reduced the amount of energy the earth receives from the Sun by ~2% - 4% since 1900. (AKA “global dimming) The cooling effect of Aerosols is more or less the same magnitude as the warming effect of CO2, however because they are much shorter lived they can only “cancel” the impact of CO2 if aerosol emissions increase much more rapidly then CO2 emissions do.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
The relevant terms are:
Global warming: the trend towards more heat being contained in the atmosphere and ocean. It’s caused by an energy imbalance at the top of the earth’s atmosphere, so there is more energy coming in than is leaving.
Climate chance: the changes in local and global climate patterns that result from warmer atmosphere/oceans. Some examples:
Polar amplification – Higher latitudes warm more rapidly then lower latitudes
Weaker Jet steams – Are the Jet steam weakens Rossby waves become larger. This increases both cold snaps and heatwaves as polar air is transported south more often. When this occurs you get a cold spell in once place but since warm air must travel north to replace the cold air you get a heatwave somewhere else in the world.
Poleward migration of monsoons – monsoon rains fall in formerly arid regions while some formerly wet regions no longer get the monsoon rains they depend on and dry out.
More powerful hurricanes/typhoons – These storms feed off ocean heat so as surface water warms there is more energy available to create and larger storms. Increases in wind shear effects may (or may not) stifle storm formation so the number of storms may not change much.
Shorter winters, longer summers in places with seasonal climates. This can effectively cause places that depend on spring melt for their moisture to dry out because there is less time for snow to accumulate and more time for it dry
Increased evaporation - Less surface moisture and more drought.
Increased precipitation globally- more heat means more evaporation and therefor more precipitation. Unfortunately this mostly occurs at times/places where conditions are already wet. Combined with the other two effects above the net result is that unless local climate is dominated by monsoon patterns dry places become dryer and wet places become even wetter.
Weaker Jet steams – Are the Jet steam weakens Rossby waves become larger. This increases both cold snaps and heatwaves as polar air is transported south more often. When this occurs you get a cold spell in once place but since warm air must travel north to replace the cold air you get a heatwave somewhere else in the world.
Poleward migration of monsoons – monsoon rains fall in formerly arid regions while some formerly wet regions no longer get the monsoon rains they depend on and dry out.
More powerful hurricanes/typhoons – These storms feed off ocean heat so as surface water warms there is more energy available to create and larger storms. Increases in wind shear effects may (or may not) stifle storm formation so the number of storms may not change much.
Shorter winters, longer summers in places with seasonal climates. This can effectively cause places that depend on spring melt for their moisture to dry out because there is less time for snow to accumulate and more time for it dry
Increased evaporation - Less surface moisture and more drought.
Increased precipitation globally- more heat means more evaporation and therefor more precipitation. Unfortunately this mostly occurs at times/places where conditions are already wet. Combined with the other two effects above the net result is that unless local climate is dominated by monsoon patterns dry places become dryer and wet places become even wetter.
Last edited:
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
Yes all obviously our campfires melted the MILE HIGH ice sheet that was over my town just 9000 years ago.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
FYI the global temperate change associates with that all that ice melting was ~6 deg C worth of warming over ~5000 years.
For comparison, the earth has warmed more then 1 deg C since the mid 1950’s. We are almost guaranteed to get another 2 degrees by 2100, but could easily go as high as another 3-5 deg C under scenarios where we don’t aggressively cut CO2 emissions.
You need to go all the way back to the KT impact that killed off the dinosaurs to find a similarly rapid change in global temperatures. Changes of 1 Deg C is something that typically takes 1000_ years, not 30 – 100 years.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You need a sarcasm icon
rolleyes, Ron Swanson, since climate change happening in the past is the number 1 climate "skeptic" myth.What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Last edited:
Thanks, I know enough to accept the mainstream science, but the details are always welcome.
You need a sarcasm icon
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
We know that the climate changed in the past because the climate scientists say so and have a lot of data to back that up and because we trust those scientists. But when those same scientists also say that the current warming is human-caused and much faster that any previous naturally occurring changes and have a lot of data to back that up, we can't possibly trust them and will probably try to use their own data about past cycles against them.
We must trust the climatologists about past cycles because we can use that to sow distrust from same climatologists about the current trend.
Which is pretty much what the OP does.
The disbelief of climate change moved from skepticism some time ago and is now pseudo-religious. There is no rationality there anymore.
As an aside, about twenty years ago, I thought I would see if the relatively crude statistical tools I use in part of my job would detect any warming trend, or whether it would be too subtle for a crude check.
Using the basic tools for statistical processes control and the data that was freely available, it was possible to very clearly see the temperature turning upwards at several points. By 1990 it was very clear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_process_control