"If global warming is CO based, should be trying to stop volcanoes..."

[centrarchid]

Quote:
Termites and other plant fermenting insects produce much more greenhouse gases than do ruminants, of which cattle are only a part of. The biological sources are key to the annual zi-zag pattern that is imposed on the linear increase we are causing.

 

[goldtopper]

Follow the money. If there's a buck to be made, people will create a story to do it.
Weather is cyclical. Record keping is but a poppyseed in the history of man.
I remember in the 70's the coming ice age! Scientists back off continually as new misinformation evolves, and because it's science, they get a pass!

 

[oneofseven]

I agree, but I don't think it should cost millions of American tax dollars to put tubes in cattle rears to see how emissions are being released.

 

[PortugalBreeder]

Quote:
That is true, but it can be see the other way around to. There are many business that also get a profit from discredit green house effect, and other environmental problems, isn't it?

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
The trouble is long term studies of ice cores has shown co2 and temperature increase is linked. Temperature goes up THEN CO2 goes up not the other way round.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Did you read the rest of the information on the link? I bolded sections for emphasis.

"This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming."

In other words, before there were human-derived sources of CO2 in the atmosphere, something else had to happen for the amount to increase -- and that "something" was a little spike in temperature. Once the CO2 was released, warming accelerated. Today, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (to levels not recorded for any other time in our species' history, from what I remember) and thus initiating the warming effect without a kick-start from the earth.

Yes, the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles before, and I'm not concerned with the safety of the earth. It's been around for almost 5 billion years. It'll be just fine. I'm worried about us. We have settled in areas based on climate and resources conducive to agriculture (and later, industry). If there's a big change coming in climate, then we can expect changes in precipitation as well. What will we do if big chunks of land that are now great for farming start drying up? If winter frosts come later and leave earlier each year, what will happen to crops which require a certain amount of dormancy that is no longer being met? I'm reminded of changes affecting the sugar maples in Vermont. Humans have planted roots that will have to be moved, which won't be easy. And in poorer areas of the world, we'll see refugees who can no longer scrape by their meager living on subsistence agriculture because their source of water has dried up. Change is coming....be ready.

 

[theredroosta]

Quote:
The trouble is long term studies of ice cores has shown co2 and temperature increase is linked. Temperature goes up THEN CO2 goes up not the other way round.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

So because human industrial growth happened in the last 200 years and CO2 increase happened in the last 200 years our industrial growth is the result of CO2 increase? That would be valid in that website's logic.

Just because they are linked doesn't mean CO2 is a result of heat, heat is the result of CO2. Also, If I were you I wouldn't trust a website called skeptical science. It seems to me their goal is to find modern science theories and provide an alternate hypothesis that has little or no claims backing it up.

 

[centrarchid]

Quote:
The trouble is long term studies of ice cores has shown co2 and temperature increase is linked. Temperature goes up THEN CO2 goes up not the other way round.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

So because human industrial growth happened in the last 200 years and CO2 increase happened in the last 200 years our industrial growth is the result of CO2 increase? That would be valid in that website's logic.

Just because they are linked doesn't mean CO2 is a result of heat, heat is the result of CO2. Also, If I were you I wouldn't trust a website called skeptical science. It seems to me their goal is to find modern science theories and provide an alternate hypothesis that has little or no claims backing it up.

Both can be correct, saidly for us. CO2 can go up first like going on now or heating can precipitate CO2 going up. Increasing temperatures resulting from increasing CO2 can change what is going on in soil, permafrost and in lake sediments causing increased release of CO2 and methane deposits compounding human induced changes.

Past non-human inducers of temperature change could be caused by solar activity, tilt of earths axis and less than circular orbit around sun, and changes in oceanic circulation caused by continental drift and rising and lowering of crust induced my what is going on in mantle. Left out meteour striking buried carbon deposits or extreme volcanic activity that could also liberate carbon deposits.

 

[theredroosta]

Quote:
So because human industrial growth happened in the last 200 years and CO2 increase happened in the last 200 years our industrial growth is the result of CO2 increase? That would be valid in that website's logic.

Just because they are linked doesn't mean CO2 is a result of heat, heat is the result of CO2. Also, If I were you I wouldn't trust a website called skeptical science. It seems to me their goal is to find modern science theories and provide an alternate hypothesis that has little or no claims backing it up.

Both can be correct, saidly for us. CO2 can go up first like going on now or heating can precipitate CO2 going up. Increasing temperatures resulting from increasing CO2 can change what is going on in soil, permafrost and in lake sediments causing increased release of CO2 and methane deposits compounding human induced changes.

Past non-human inducers of temperature change could be caused by solar activity, tilt of earths axis and less than circular orbit around sun, and changes in oceanic circulation caused by continental drift and rising and lowering of crust induced my what is going on in mantle. Left out meteour striking buried carbon deposits or extreme volcanic activity that could also liberate carbon deposits.

While that may be true, none of those events could produce the same data we have today.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
The trouble is long term studies of ice cores has shown co2 and temperature increase is linked. Temperature goes up THEN CO2 goes up not the other way round.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

So because human industrial growth happened in the last 200 years and CO2 increase happened in the last 200 years our industrial growth is the result of CO2 increase? That would be valid in that website's logic.

Just because they are linked doesn't mean CO2 is a result of heat, heat is the result of CO2. Also, If I were you I wouldn't trust a website called skeptical science. It seems to me their goal is to find modern science theories and provide an alternate hypothesis that has little or no claims backing it up.

Perhaps you should actually look at the website.

"Skeptical Science: Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skepticism.

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

 

[theredroosta]

Quote:
So because human industrial growth happened in the last 200 years and CO2 increase happened in the last 200 years our industrial growth is the result of CO2 increase? That would be valid in that website's logic.

Just because they are linked doesn't mean CO2 is a result of heat, heat is the result of CO2. Also, If I were you I wouldn't trust a website called skeptical science. It seems to me their goal is to find modern science theories and provide an alternate hypothesis that has little or no claims backing it up.

Perhaps you should actually look at the website.

"Skeptical Science: Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skepticism.

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

I was judging a book by its cover I suppose.