Breaking News-Humans 'not to blame' for climate change

[Zzarchov]

So full of baloney it's not worth a comment.

Actually its 100% true, its just so far out of context its useless.

 

[Zzarchov]

Well, where does CO2 and O2 come from?

You are right that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere does not come from Man. But check my post on Page 2 for the answer to your question.

 

[earth_as_one]

This might help:

Yes there are other sources of carbon in our atmosphere besides man, but that's besides the point. Before man, the carbon cycle was relatively stable. The amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere was more or less equal to the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.

But the carbon released into the atmosphere from fossil fuels is new carbon. Fossil fuel carbon has been locked away for hundreds of millions of years. Our previous climate was based a stable carbon cycle. Our new climate will depend on how much new carbon man releases from fossil fuels into the global carbon cycle.

"Is man changing the atmosphere?" Yes we are, though the introduction of new carbon into the atmosphere from fossil fuels.

"Is the amount of new carbon man puts in the atmosphere big enough to cause significant climate change?" The overwhelming consensus is that the new carbon is having an effect on the climate.

The news is that scientists more or less agree this effect has been measured.

Scientists more or less agree that the effect of this new carbon in our atmosphere will increase the strength and frequency of droughts and storms as well raise sea levels.

 

[Stretch]

WOW, who'd a thunk "greenhouse gases" could travel so far....

A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change,
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

Polar caps wane as Mars tries global warming

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/martian_warming/

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Please read the posts people and try to think.

laughs. Living beings do not include humans.

People are alive!

Solar systems​

hum...

1. global warming and sun pulling earth a little bit in. But, consider the earth's place, it will most likely to be global warming.

2. Jupiter's red spots and Mar's glowing parts.

I have this theory that once earth and mars are one and then something hit to split earth into earth and mars. Some of the remains of the past whole earth were scattered throughout the solar system to jupiter. The planets in front are the result of this collision and so is moon. At the same time, some part of earth is embedded in the sun and sun contains earth. Some of the scientists belive is the moon, but I think it might some other thing. I don't know what, but it must of somehow collided.

I guessed this theory based on that earth and mars are a like. jupiter have very weird moons of combinations and the sun having more in common with the sun than any other planets. Why do the earth have the aroras and other planets don't?

If you look at the geographical features, moon and mercury are very similar at the surface, but not so in their positions. Also, venus have the similarities to earth, but its core is different.

It might be after the collision, some of the magnetic pulls of the nowaday earth affects those planets. As the nowaday earth gets warm, so do the other planets because of the magnetic pulls?

It's a theory I got based on facts. I don't know the exact number because I have no fancy equipment to test out the rock's age and stuff.

If I am right, give me no credit except I guessed this. I do not like extreme attention.

 

[earth_as_one]

On the earth, man's activities have a measurable effect on the earth's climate change. No one is suggesting that our activities affect other planets.

But I think your point was to suggest that climate change can be a result of other factors besides man's activities and that's true. But just because other factors exist doesn't mean that man's activities aren't a factor or that man's activities aren't affecting the earth's climate.

For example, volcanoes also introduce new carbon into the atmosphere. But volcanic activity can also cause measurable climate change.

 

[Walter]

A mostly sensible moderate article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

 

[#juan]

Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been here since before man arrived. Since the start of the industrial revolution, man has dumped around eight hundred and fifty billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The oceans have absorbed some of it. Vegetation has absorbed some of it. Some of it has stayed in the atmosphere, as an increase in greenhouse gas, to reflect heat back to Earth. Hence, global warming....

 

[jimmoyer]

What explains Mars getting warmer ?

Interested.

No ideology behind it.

 

[#juan]

What explains Mars getting warmer ?

Interested.

No ideology behind it.

Seems to me I read that Mars' warming was due to wind storms blowing light coloured dust away and exposing dark surface. The darker surface absorbed more heat, etc., etc..

 

[mabudon]

Either way, with no atmosphere that'd be any good to us, I really couldn't care less what makes Mars the way it is.

That's like saying that since you can have a fire in a barbecue and it doesn't burn, you should be able to do the same in a wicker basket, no??

 

[jimmoyer]

I was just wondering if scientists are registering a hotter sun for the whole solar system,
was what I was thinking.

Wicker baskets will have to wait, Mabudon.

 

[Walter]

Another skeptical, qualified scientist. Obviously he hasn't been reading #juan's posts.
"John Laws Morning Show on Friday"

 

[Walter]

Here'e another skeptic, Al Gore's gonna be ticked.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

 

[Walter]

Even the CBC, in 2004, was a skeptic.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/cbc-global-warming-doomsday-called-off.html

 

[#juan]

9 Mar 2007

‘Cosmoclimatology’ - tired old arguments in new clothes

Filed under:

• Climate Science
• Sun-earth connections

— rasmus @ 3:57 am - ( )

In a recent issue of the journal Astronomy and Geophysics (A&G), Henrik Svensmark coined a new term: 'cosmoclimatology' . I think 'cosmoclimatology' is a good and refreshing name for anything combining our cosmos with our climate. However, all other aspects of the article I found very disappointing. We have already covered most of these topics before, but the A&G articles provides us with some new aspects to discuss. Furthermore, Svensmark is the Director for Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, and therefore influential. He is also the co-author of a recent book with Nigel Calder that received some attention. Furthermore, a laboratory experiment of his also managed to make some headlines. It seems that solar forcing is one of the sceptics' last trenches in the debate about climate change. In my view the A&G paper therefore merits a comment as long as the same old and worn arguments resurface without discussing misgivings from the critics.
There are a number of issues which really make the A&G paper poor in my view. One is the neglect in addressing old criticisms of the hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) change our climate by modulating clouds

http://tinyurl.com/yorbmv

 

[Logic 7]

Humans 'not to blame' for climate change

April 3, 2007 - 8:04AM


A group of scientists is fighting a rearguard action to challenge mainstream evidence that humans are to blame for climate change.
They point to natural shifts in the sun's heat, a cooling of the planet in the mid-20th century and an apparent slowdown of temperature rises in the past decade.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in February that it was "very likely" - more than 90 per cent - that human activities, namely fossil fuel burning, explained most of an "unequivocal" warming in the past 50 years.
The panel said temperatures will likely rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius this century.
The IPCC, made up of about 2,500 scientists, is endorsed by governments.
"There is always a bit of room for doubt...it's in the nature of science," said Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN climate panel.
"But I cannot think of any tangible reasons for doubt."
The "sceptics" who doubt some IPCC claims include meteorology professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Professor Paul Reiter from the medical entomology department at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and author Michael Crichton.
Many scientists also say US President George W Bush has exaggerated the uncertainties about scientific findings to appease powerful business and oil lobbies.
Here are some of the arguments of those who cast doubt on mankind's responsibility for climate change, and beneath each a response by the Hadley Centre of Britain's Meteorological Office, its official centre for climate change research.
1. Temperatures dropped for several decades after 1945, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions
*** Along with carbon dioxide, fossil fuels also release particles called aerosols, which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight. Aerosols dominated the warming effect of CO2 prior to clean-air acts of the 1960s and 1970s.
2. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere lag temperature rises in an ice core record dating back 600,000 years.
*** Over the past several hundred thousand years, changes in the earth's orbit around the sun led to temperature changes, which in turn affected CO2 levels.
Concentrations of C02 are higher than they had been during the past 600,000 years. The counter-effect is that human-induced increases of C02, such as factory emissions, have enhanced the greenhouse effect and led to warming.
3. Changes in solar activity also produce good correlations with temperature change.
*** There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. Satellite measurements showed no big change in solar heating in the last three decades of the 20th century. CO2 has been shown to have caused most warming in the past 50 years.
4. Rising temperatures in the second half of the last century have plateaued in the past 10 years.
*** 1998 was extremely warm due to a warning of the weather anomaly El Nino warming in the Pacific Ocean, and subsequent years were colder. Ten years is too short a period to see long-term trends. While the World Meteorological Organisation says 1998 was the warmest year since records began 150 years ago, NASA says 2005 was warmer.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Hu...-climate-change/2007/04/03/1175366197050.html

Human has never been blamed for climate changes, what has been for is the fact that human actions accelerate the climate changes, quite different.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

I guess I can give you people some stuff of mars. As long people go to

www.nineplanets.org.

It shouldn't be that hard to understand as long as people pass high school or at least Gr. 7. I suggest you read in every detail of the planetary history and infos. When you put the pieces of information together, I think you may see a rough history of earth and the change of earth split in half by an object.

To be respective, skeptics are people who thinks. To be very very bad, skeptics are people do not get something and want to make it sound like they understand. That way they might attract attention and get the fame and glory. Not my favourite type of people.

 

[L Gilbert]

:| Huh?

 

[typingrandomstuff]

They don't understand a lot of stuff. Skeptics sometimes tell us about one thing such as healthy to eat chocolate. Next, they will tell us eating chocolate is bad. They don't understand that it depends on the amount of chocolates you eat that makes you healthy. They have strong view points and they like to go about announcing their opinions. One skeptic may say chocolate is good for you! The other skeptic goes chocolate is bad for you! Overall, they don't understand. They just get attention.