Humanity Responsible For Current Climate Change

tehanu writes "Scientists working with Antarctic ice have found that the level of greenhouse gases is at the highest level in over half a million years. Carbon dioxide is 27% higher now than any other time over the last 650 000 years. Methane, an even stronger greenhouse gas is 130% higher. The period of time studied covers eight full glacial cycles including a time when the earth's position relative to the sun is the same as it is today. Other scientists have found that the annual rate at which the sea has risen since the industrial revolution is twice that of over the last 5000 years. It is predicted that by 2100 the sea level will be 40cm higher. These results provide strong evidence that human activity since the industrial revolution, rather than just natural processes, has strongly altered the world's climate. As one of the scientists involved in the research put it: 'The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.'"

Comments

Devil's Advocate position

[xmas2003]

While I personally agree there is some truth that we are affecting the planet on a global scale, let me play devil's advocate for a moment here. Assuming the data is good (a BIG assumption), how do we know this isn't part of some bigger natural geological cycle? Remember that continents/mountains move SLOWLY ... like millions of years. It may be that this is the natural ebb and flow of nature. And the "sea level" raising 40cm by 2100 makes one wonder about places like New Orleans.

BTW, I usually run Firefox, but happened to open this up in Internet Exploder - all three URL's in the article had popups - you forget about those things when you predominantly use Firefox.

P.S. I'm argueably contributing to global warming with my 20,000+ Christmas lights ... although at least I signed up for wind power.

Re:No! God did it!

[bigman2003]

Sadly, the best possible response we will see in America, is people putting some sort of 'Stop Global Warming' magnet on their SUV.

I am a proponent of HUGE tax increases on gasoline. Push it up to the $6 level. People won't stop driving until it really hurts to do it.

We really need to do something about cutting down on emissions. This is a serious problem, and our society is just moving further and futher towards making it worse.

Look at the electronics industry- look at our computers, and how much energy they suck up. Blindly imagining that this problem won't affect us, is like putting our heads in the sand.

But the other day I was looking at some 'Enviro-Logs' I bought. They are like Duraflame logs, but they are made from recycled 'waxed cardboard' (which they can't use for making new cardboard.)

The label touted them as being environmentally friendly because they took the cardboard out of the waste stream and landfill. But is burning it even worse?

This is a very very complex problem, and we Americans are the biggest consumers, and therefore the biggest offenders.

Once again, I say tax the crap out of things. Make it hurt to buy...use that money to correct some of the wrongs that have already been done. Protect the forests, lower emissions, etc. etc.

I'm not a tree-hugger, but I am serious about this.

Even in the darkest hours, there is yet hope.....

[Ex-MislTech]

Well the Tech is out there to reverse this .

We just need a Apollo program level of devotion to it .

University of Wisconsin has a working 3HE reactor, he fuel is just the issue, the moon is the answer.

Helium-3 on the moon, and the new finding of altering Hydrogen atoms molecular
orbits in a manner unknown before and pointing to fundamental errors in physics/Calculus .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,162 7424,00.html

Keep in mind he has had some peer review on this before chucking it on the bone pile .

The Algae that makes enormous amounts of oil for biodiesel and other uses also
gives as a short term methodolgy vs. drilling for oil . It also burns cleaner .

        * Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m/km)
        * Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m/km)
        * Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m/km)
        * Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160 m/km)
        * Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (610 m/km) [2]
        * Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (10,000 to 20,000 m/km)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

There is yet Hope, but stray a little and you will fail to the ruin of us all - LOTR

Ex-MislTech

Re:No! God did it!

[bigman2003]

I lived in Germany for 3.5 years (you can probably guess why). And when I was there, gas was about what you quoted, except at the time is was in Deutschmarks- but it was about the same price. And that was 15 years ago.

And when gas is that expensive...people FIND other ways to get around. You do it by necessity.

American's won't change until this happens.

Re:Meet the new boss...same as the old boss

[Lurking Zealot]

It might be a good idea to sell that beachfront property and start shopping for property further north

I heard an interesting story on NPR this afternoon about a village in Alaska that is being threatened by storms. Historically the village was safe because by this time of year the ocean near the shore had frozen. In recent years (past decade?) the oecan is not freezing before the severe storms hit. As a result, the erosion is removing the sand that the village is settled on. The general trend appears to be supported by a report from the US Global Change Research Corportaion. which states in part

All components of the cryosphere (the frozen portions of the Earth) in the Arctic are experiencing change, including snow cover, mountain and continental glaciers, permafrost, sea ice, and lake and river ice. For example, glaciers in Alaska, as throughout the Arctic, have retreated through most of the 20th century. Estimated losses in Alaskan glaciers are of the order of 30 feet in thickness over the past 40 years, even while some have gained thickness in their upper regions.

And don't cherry pick that "gained thickness in their upper regions" part. My guess (I'm not a glacial hydrologist) is that there is a small gain at the top due to increased precipitation -- possibly also caused by warming. Bottom line is the the ice mass is decreasing. On the matter of erosion the USGRP report says

In fact, there are already numerous ecosystem changes observed due to permafrost thawing. They include: ... increased coastal and riverine (along the banks of rivers) erosion

Of course, being authored by an agency of the US goverment the report finds the silver lining

In the longer term, longer ice-free seasons are likely to bring substantial benefits to marine transport and offshore operations in the petroleum industry

Me. I think we've set in motion a huge experiment. We should do our best to minimize our impact, but being humans, we won't. The mass would rather swill another budwiser and flick the remote.

Re:Links

[Coryoth]

I was discussing the global warming issue just last Tuesday with someone who was very adamant that humans are responsible for everything.

Are humans responsible for everything when it comes to Global Warming or the greenhouse effect? Of course not, don't be silly. And nobody who actually has a clue but is concerned about the issue claims that. The claim is that humans are responsible for a significant deviation in the expected natural lavels of global warming via the greenhouse effect.

As I offered more and more opposing evidence suggesting that there is no definitive proof that mankind is responsible

There isn't any "definitive proof" that humans are responsible for significant deviations in factors affecting global climate. Just like there isn't any "definitive proof" that evolution is correct, or that dark matter exists. What there is, is a weight of evidence toward the degree of impact of human factors that puts the burden of proof pretty squarely on those claiming humans are not responsible.

What do we know? We know that in the past 200 years humans have produced large volumes of carbon dioxide and methane through various industrial processes. We now know that current levels of carbon dioxide and methane are the highest they've been for over 650,000 years. We know that global temperature correlates extremely closely with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over a range of 650,000 years. We know that atmospheric carbon dioxide traps heat, and can cause global warming. We know that there has been an acceleration in the rate or rise of global temperatures (beyond what would be expected coming out of the "little ice age" 400 years ago) that is apparently unprecendented for the last 2000 years or so.

Are humans solely responsible for the current warming trend? No, we're coming out of small dip in global climate, so there was some warming anyway. You'll also find that solar variation accounts for around 30% or the observed warming (or at least that's what the IPCC reports claim), and other natural cycles are responsible for some as well. The fact remains that humans have produced a lot of carbon dioxide and methane in the last 200 years, that those gases do cause warming, and that the levels of those gases are unprecendented to the last 650,000 years. Humans are providing a significant forcing compared to natural fluctuations, it would be surprising if that didn't have an impact.

Jedidiah.

This reminds me of a certain speech...

[NeuroManson]

By the same guys who largely deny there's any such thing as global warming: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.", in regards to Iraq's nonexistant weapons of mass destruction.

Well we don't want the smoking gun to be beachfront property in Utah. Even now, those same cretins who claim no proof of global warming, are thinking up ways to spin a fast buck from the disappearing arctic ice caps.

Hell, for all we know, maybe all the excess CO2 is coming from right wingers chanting denial.

Re:College grads working @McD's chose the wrong ma

[sg_oneill]

I dunno man, I think we are a poorer society without our philosophers. I was looking back at the archives at my uni, and they had old records from philosophers., that families used to sit around the phonogram and listen to. I suspect we'd be a lot more thoughtful society if people still revered philosophers like they used to.

0.004% of human body is iron

[tehanu]

Your calculations show that 0.01% of the atmosphere is CO2. Hence you argue, it is impossible for a 27% increase in the CO2 levels to affect anything. 0.004% of the human body is iron. So the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 250 times the percentage of iron in the human body. http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-202929 Using your reasoning, I guess iron has absolutely no effect on the human body and is just there as filler eh? 20grams is 0.03% of the weight of a 60kg man. Yet, the lethal human dose for arsenic is 20g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic 50mg is 0.000083% the weight of a 60kg man. Yet, the lethal human dose for hydrogen cyanide is 50mg. If it is inhaled, concentrations of 300 parts per million is all that is needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide