Greenhouse gasses havn't been this high in 650,000 years and most likely much longer

[The Mullinator]

http://www.latimes.com/news/science...925.story?coll=la-story-footer&track=morenews

One of the biggest arguments against the idea of humans causing climate change can no longer be used. This proves that our current greenhouse gas levels are most certainly much higher than any normal climate cycle could create.

Also:

Sea levels are rising twice as fast as they were 150 years ago and man-made greenhouse emissions are the prime cause, a study by scientists in America has found.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article329180.ece

 

[bliink]

At least it'll counter the coming ice age :E

 

[DeusExMachina]

....she's right.

 

[dream431ca]

At least it'll counter the coming ice age :E

Actually it could make the Ice age worse.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

I wanted an ice age. We would build giant domes that would be heated with perpetual motion machines. Inside would dwell a highly regulated human population, when you reach a certain age you would be killed off to keep the demand of food at appropriate levels. Then one day a man named Logan will make a run for it with a scantily clad female assistant, they will emerge from this dome to find sunny lush green growth covering the remnants of our cities.

If the sea level rises we'll have to create underwater domed cities not unlike Ota-Gunga. Dolphins will be trained as the new pet dog and mankind shall become one with the ocean.

 

[Sulkdodds]

\O/

Woohoo.

 

[Garfield_]

I want an ice age aswell, then we could move to mars and get eaten by all aliens, and then we could reborn and grow up as aliens and go eat humans, possiby

 

[Skar]

Huh? Doesn't that mean the green house gasses were that high 650,000 years ago? How does that make us completely responsible for todays level? Obviously the Earth can get to the point it is now, and recover, without us around.

 

[The Mullinator]

Huh? Doesn't that mean the green house gasses were that high 650,000 years ago? How does that make us completely responsible for todays level? Obviously the Earth can get to the point it is now, and recover, without us around.

The study only goes back 650,000 years. Anything before then is unknown, it is not saying that it was this high 650,000 years ago because it wasn't according to the study.

Also apparently the increase in greenhouse gasses since the industrial age has never before been seen in nature, it is far too fast of an increase to have possibly been caused by nature according to this study.

 

[bliink]

Actually it could make the Ice age worse.

warm weather making cold weather colder? how so?

I say! I say!@@#!

 

[Skar]

Fair enough. The wording was a bit misleading. But the article still isn't very convincing, or sure of itself:


"The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high or higher than today was probably tens of millions of years ago, Alley said. Over millions of years, carbon dioxide levels shift because of slow geological processes, such as weathering of rocks, swallowing of crust into subduction zones and the release of gases from volcanoes."

So carbon dioxide was this high at a point before. The Earth has been around a long time, so even a few million years ago isn't very long in the 'long' run. Muhaha. Anyway:

"Glacial cycles occur roughly every 100,000 years and include long periods of cold, when ice ages occur, and brief, warm interglacial periods, such as the current one. The cycles are controlled by shakes, wobbles and tilts in the Earth's orbit around the sun that determine the amount of sunlight falling on and warming the planet."

So we do have cycles. But wait! The new sample has disproven this idea of 100k year periods. Instead:

"But the new core shows that the interglacial period of 440,000 years ago, when the Earth's position relative to the sun was similar to what it is today, lasted nearly 30,000 years and was not ended by natural decreases in carbon dioxide, Stocker said. The work suggests that the next ice age is about 15,000 years away."

In effect, it is still saying that we have cycles, but are just much longer. In anycase, the time period studied is miniscule in the scope of the Earth. And this does not mean that we are causing climate change on our own. I have no doubt we aren't helping, though.

 

[The Mullinator]

Fair enough. The wording was a bit misleading. But the article still isn't very convincing, or sure of itself:


"The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high or higher than today was probably tens of millions of years ago, Alley said. Over millions of years, carbon dioxide levels shift because of slow geological processes, such as weathering of rocks, swallowing of crust into subduction zones and the release of gases from volcanoes."

So carbon dioxide was this high at a point before. The Earth has been around a long time, so even a few million years ago isn't very long in the 'long' run. Muhaha. Anyway:

"Glacial cycles occur roughly every 100,000 years and include long periods of cold, when ice ages occur, and brief, warm interglacial periods, such as the current one. The cycles are controlled by shakes, wobbles and tilts in the Earth's orbit around the sun that determine the amount of sunlight falling on and warming the planet."

So we do have cycles. But wait! The new sample has disproven this idea of 100k year periods. Instead:

"But the new core shows that the interglacial period of 440,000 years ago, when the Earth's position relative to the sun was similar to what it is today, lasted nearly 30,000 years and was not ended by natural decreases in carbon dioxide, Stocker said. The work suggests that the next ice age is about 15,000 years away."

In effect, it is still saying that we have cycles, but are just much longer. In anycase, the time period studied is miniscule in the scope of the Earth. And this does not mean that we are causing climate change on our own. I have no doubt we aren't helping, though.

So what you are saying is that it could be natural and that the earth can recover? Well I agree the earth can recover but the fact is recovery seems to take in the order of thousands of years which is a little too long for us to wait. Also this is most likely not a naturally caused cycle:

The results add "another piece of information showing that the time scales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system,"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p25s01-usgn.html

In other words we are changing the climate far faster than the earth does naturally and the fact is we have no idea what might happen as a result, however almost all signs point to it being bad.

 

[Skar]

I said I think we aren't helping, and I certainly believe will recover itself. And you're quite right in that recovery may involve us being smited. I'm simply pointing out that the Earth still operates in cycles, and that we likely aren't the only cause for global warming.

For all I know, we may continue in our industrialiation to the point where we destroy the atmosphere, and we all die a gruesome death. Over a long time, the Earth will repair itself, and life will begin again.

We are all operating on "most likely's" here.

 

[Solaris]

warm weather making cold weather colder? how so?

I say! I say!@@#!

Have you ever seen the day after tomorrow.

 

[Axyon]

Have you ever seen the day after tomorrow.

Tell me you did not just use that film as a basis for scientific evidence. Please.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But it's all true! Global warming is happening as we speak! Just the other day I had to trek across the icy wastes of what was once the American East Coast to rescue a friend of mine from the frozen ruins of New York.

 

[kirovman]

Tell me you did not just use that film as a basis for scientific evidence. Please.

You say that, but look what happened with Independance Day.



They predicted with 100% accuracy that independance day would fall on the 4th of July. Go them!

 

[Axyon]

You say that, but look what happened with Independance Day.



They predicted with 100% accuracy that independance day would fall on the 4th of July. Go them!

That may be so, but hopefully it's only a matter of time before Will Smith does something about those aliens that plague the 4th every year.