Historum - History Forums

Historum - History Forums (http://historum.com/)
-   Natural Environment (http://historum.com/natural-environment/)
-   -   Climate Change (% influenced by Man) (http://historum.com/natural-environment/33076-climate-change-influenced-man.html)

unclefred October 28th, 2011 08:42 AM

It's very hard to say. The IPCC and other money grabbers have hyped it way out of proportion. As you can see in the graph, the climate is cyclic and we have recently, in geological terms, come out of an ice age. I previous warming periods, there has been a several year lag between warming periods, and a rise in co2. In this warming cycle, we had a rise in co2 along with the warming. did the co2 cause it? How much influence is highly debated, currently. Why would this warming cycle be any different than the previous ones, is the question. As we have learned in the past ten years, the warming is not keeping pace with the co2 level rise. Not even close. As you can see, it has been much warmer in past warming cycles.

http://i.imgur.com/C9qfN.png

Rasta October 28th, 2011 08:43 AM

Well, it's not like we have a control in this study. While humans obviously have an impact on the environment, it's difficult to say how much.

We can't even predict the weather with any accuracy beyond a few weeks. How can we say that we understand our impact on cycles that can last several thousands of years?

Panthera tigris altaica October 28th, 2011 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1 (Post 802575)
Nope.

The thing is that there is more than reasonable consensus, at least analogous to let say on the Amerindians coming to the American continent via Beringia...
...Or that the Moonlanding was for real, for that matter.

The moonlanding's are observable, the Bering land bridge was/is a theory, at least when i was in school?

Quote:

That's exactly why the relevant policies of virtually all nations of this Planet are based on the assumption that the ongoing climate change is to a large extent anthropogenic.
Okay, here is the current problem, science + politics = suspicion.

My view is ridiculously simple, until i am convinced otherwise, i can only go with the more logically believable scenario that this is more than likely cyclical in nature rather then man made.

unclefred October 28th, 2011 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica (Post 802699)
The moonlanding's are observable, the Bering land bridge was/is a theory, at least when i was in school?



Okay, here is the current problem, science + politics = suspicion.

My view is ridiculously simple, until i am convinced otherwise, i can only go with the more logically believable scenario that this is more than likely cyclical in nature rather then man made.

The land bridge theory has been dealt a serious blow with the finding of a spear point in a mastodon from an era pre-dating the land bridge. There are articles all over the webz and in science magazines admitting the theory is losing traction.
BBC News - Old American theory is 'speared'

unclefred October 28th, 2011 09:42 AM

Extreme melting on greenland ice sheet, team reports; Glacial melt cycle could become self-amplifying

One of the many wrinkles of climatology.

haithabu October 28th, 2011 11:46 AM

The question presupposes climate change.

wittgenstein October 28th, 2011 04:21 PM

"The thing is, there is no unified consensus within the international scientific community,"
Panthera tigris altaica
Totaly and completely false.
Organizations that concur:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
National Research Council (US)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Quaternary Association
Geological Society of America
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences

Organizations with noncommittal statements:
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists

(With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate)
And then of course there is "Scientific American, National Geographic, NASA......
PS; Of course all those organizations are secretly controlled by the Illuminati! :laugh:

wittgenstein October 28th, 2011 04:43 PM

Are all those organizations stupid or part of a conspiracy? I find both suggestions silly.
Unfortunately, most people do not realize that there is overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that humans have drastically altered the climate.
I'd suggest that you turn off fox "news" and its lies.
PS; Interestingly, Murdoch himself ( that paragon of virtue, sarcasm) has changed his mind. Unfortunately, there is political power in being seen as a conspiracy enthusiast. In other words , while behind the scenes one admits the FACT of global warming, one uses the conspiracy theories to scare people into thinking that there is a vast conspiracy directed against the vulnerable and powerless :laugh: ( it is unbelievable what the sheeple can be taught to believe!) international corporations that provide us with the necessities.
Rupert Murdoch Changes Mind On Global Warming

sylla1 October 28th, 2011 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica (Post 802699)
The moonlanding's are observable, the Bering land bridge was/is a theory, at least when i was in school?



Okay, here is the current problem, science + politics = suspicion.

My view is ridiculously simple, until i am convinced otherwise, i can only go with the more logically believable scenario that this is more than likely cyclical in nature rather then man made.

"More logical" for you, as you are Olympycally ignoring the overwhelming evidence.

Besides, the denial of the evidence is far more political.

And of course both the consequences of Global warming and the anthropogenic cntribution are perefectly objective and observable ... except for people that don't want to see, of course.

In any case, these are facts; they are simply not open to debate; virtually all governments have had to accept such facts, in spite of the immense political opposition.

sylla1 October 28th, 2011 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haithabu (Post 802809)
The question presupposes climate change.

And for plenty of good reasons.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.