If historically Co2 has not driven temp on the planet. Then what proof is there of "Man made climate change" ?

Question

If historically Co2 has not driven temp on the planet. Then what proof is there of "Man made climate change" ?

Answer 1

We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape, government has to change. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. We have to take the time to get it right. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We can not redo this one. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone willing to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak natural gas in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Global warming projects over the next 90 years that carbon dioxide will skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but where is this fuel? We have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuclear winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain and other forests, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

Education is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.

Answer 2

Here's a good example of the problem:

"We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. ..."

(okay, good start - the poster acknowledges that the carbon dioxide part of the equation is now moot - keep in mind that the carbon dioxide part of the equation is the entire justification for carbon credits and blaming fossil fuels for global warming ... but now it is moot and doesn't need to be discussed. ... the poster, however, spent several paragraphs detailing the fossil fuels issue and the need to find alternative fuels ... back to the show) ...

.

"Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction. Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! ..."

(me again - just wanted to cut off more messages about the need to change things - didja notice that the poster raised the carbon dioxide issue again  - even though it is no longer part of the equation?  - we're now arguing about the ozone layer and man's activities on the Earth's surface. - the ozone layer issue hasn't been around for a while.  - and we're paving too much - and cutting down trees... um, in Brazil and Africa)

"The result is: change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, ... "

(since we're supposed to look beyond the hype I will cut out the poster's hype and anti=Bush rant - now the poster says we don't know what kind of change will occur... could be cooling or warming or neither ... doesn't know when or where ... but the whole problem is supposed to be imminent and global)



"But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. "

(... please pay attention ... remember we have passed the carbon dioxide debate, it is no longer relevant ... )

"CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. "

(didja catch that? ... let's look at that again )

"CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. "

(but increased carbon dioxide levels are supposed to be causing the warming, not the other way around... that's why we're supposed to stop adding any carbon dioxide to the environment)

"The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels).

(okay ... so we have learned that the carbon dioxide problem is a result of the warming, and the warming has lots of natural causes - the poster even admits the sun's role in all of this - and apparently is admitting that weather and weather change are natural functions of the planet))

...

"( stuff about new construction)"

"(political candidate plug)"

"(personal plug for website)"

Can we see the problem? The root cause of global warming was supposed to be the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But apparently the CO2 is there because of the warming. The warming may or may not be caused by some of man's practices and lots of nature's practices.

The asker asked, "If historically Co2 has not driven temp on the planet. Then what proof is there of "Man made climate change" ? "

The answerer agreed with the premise, failed to answer the question and put in a big shout-out for change even though there is now, admittedly, no problem that his changes would address.

Man's, and especially America and Europe's, emissions of CO2 are supposed to be the root cause of global warming. This poster says, no. ... But just because their entire premise is wrong, the "Man-made global warming" crowd still demand changes to American and European societies based upon the charge that CO2 emissions are to blame.

This is why so few of the top supporters of the man-made global warming crowd will allow a serious debate. Their own facts and arguments do not support them.

Answer 3

There are many basic scientific facts which can only be explained if the current global warming is being caused by an increased greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.

For example, the planet is warming as much or more during the night than day.  If the warming were due to the Sun, the planet should warm a lot more during the day when the Sun has influence.  Greenhouse gases trap heat all the time, so they warm the planet regardless of time of day.  Another example is that the upper atmosphere is cooling because the greenhouse gases trap the heat in the lower atmosphere.  If warming were due to the Sun, it would be warming all layers of the atmosphere.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

We know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming.  What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming.  This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming.  They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles.  They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man....

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes.  Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions.  We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna...

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels.  We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%).  You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

Answer 4

What's funny about this question is that it is simple, yet people still fumble with it.

It is widely know that C02 is a significant GHG (Green House Gas).  And what we know about GHGs is that it first acts as a thin shield which let's sun energy through but then traps enough of it, that we can enjoy weather like what we have today, but this shield can be expanded (i.e. Global Warming) or thinned (i.e. Ozone Layer Depletion).  Other factors play a role... Global Dimming from volcanism, pollution and/or excessive clouds, etc. significant Sun Spot pattern changes (radiation from increased or decreased solar flares), earth orbit around the sun, tilt (which changes every 11,000 years), the latter being the kind of thing that is rather regulated... anyway... aside from so many things which can affect climate, and 1 degree average increase world wide in less than a century is pretty incredible, should such a change be normal, we'd know of HUGE swings in temp over thousands of years spans, but this doesn't occur.  Global Warming is not new to earth but it is rare, and it can take thousand years for something like one degree change to occur.

So the point is, rising GHGs do have an effect on climate.  This is not questionable Science.

TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA

Statements by dissenting organizations:

"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"

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

Although we have been due for this level of temperature we have experience over the past thousands of years, nothing in nature or in the last 150 years can explain the dramatic rise in temperature... the dramatic rise in droughts and hurricane/tsunami/cyclone migration, frequency and strength... the dramatic increase in floods and rising water, the dramatic increase in ocean acidity, corral reef bleaching (death), the sharp increase of animal extinctions, the increase in melting methane GHG (30 times more powerful than CO2!)deposits in the oceans, lakes and melting permafrost (another feedback loop further accelerating global warming) the dramatic increase in melting glaciers and ice packs (i.e Mount Kilimanjaro, Greenland and this also speeds up global warming because of the reduction of white reflective surfaces)... and so on...

Venus is a CO2 death trap, and believes me when I tell you... it is pretty darn hot.

CO2 has repeatedly shown to be higher during periods when the earth was warmer in many types of fossil records.

hope that helps...

Answer 5

This is actually one of the proofs of global warming.

CO2 acts in two ways.  It can cause warming, via the greenhouse effect, and it is released from ocean waters as they warm.  Simple facts, not disputed by any scientific "skeptic".

In the past CO2 lagged temperature by hundreds of years, because it was mostly an effect.

But this time THERE IS NO LAG.  CO2 and temperature are going up together, because this time CO2 is causing most of the warming.

Answer 6

Man-made climate change is not a reality yet, but if we don't change to renewable energy soon, it may become big enough a problem to be a hazard. (As with most things humans do, it'll get worse over time.)

Answer 7

Wow.  I was going to give you an answer, but lmurray nailed it.  The serious answer is, whether you believe that global warming (as tiny as it is) is manmade or not, the truth is that we're running out of the easy sources of petroleum.  

Petroleum, coal and natural gas has driven every major technology advance and our very way of life for the past 100 years, and the stuff won't last forever.  We really have to get past this stage of human evolution and find alternate sources of energy.

Answer 8

To correct the statement embedded in the first half of your question, it should read:

"If historically CO2 lagged temperature rise by 800 years, but then temperatures rose for 4200 more years..."

The answer to the second half,

"Then what proof is there of 'Man made climate change'?"

is:

Because we know that CO2 increases were involved in 80% of the warming years in the past, and we know from carbon isotope anaysis that we've raised CO2 by 1/3 over the past century, the cause and effect relationship appears obvious.  The measured absence of a significant warming contribution from other factors such as solar influence reinforces this hypothesis.

Whether or not CO2 started natural warming in the past is irrelevant, indicating nothing about its capacity to drive damaging warming now.