Cause(s)

[noggin]

Didn't know which thread to post this in, so I thought I'd start a new one!

I was wondering last night whether "we" had all got lots of stuff wrong and were overcomplicating something which has a very simple answer. Seeing as scientists come up with conflicting theories I wondered if everyone was barking up the wrong tree(s) and if the reason for global climate change/shift was something totally simple:

The Earth wobbles on it's axis, doesn't it? Could it not just be that the Earth's climate responds to how much/ which bits are "getting" the most Sun? Or how close we are to the Sun? Slightly greater or lesser distance from the Sun would also mean that the heat which the Earth gets from the Sun would be received, stored and released in different ways, according to Earth's position, and this would affect climate.

As has been said before, by others, massive climate changes/shifts have ocurred in the past without any help from mankind. I just can't help thinking that maybe scientists have become so wrapped up in their own ideas and in dissecting every little morsel of information that they could be missing the blindingly obvious?

It can happen, y'know!

[Bobby]

How does that account for the massive CO2 increases we have seen since the industrial revolution?

We know CO2 is rising, we know it warms the Earth and we know the Earth is indeed warming. So surely it is CO2 that is causing this rise. And we know that humans emit CO2. So you can deduce that it is humans causing the CO2 increase and thus the warming.

[Essan]

You're totally correct Noggin well, almost...

... the variations in earth's orbit are well known and are believed to be major factors in the shift from Glacial to Interglacial states, as well as affecting other aspects of climate change in the past (including the desertification of the Sahara) - but they do not explain recent changes in climate and observed warming. Indeed, the Ruddiman hypothesis says that we should actually be in a new Glacial by now, and would be were it not for anthropogenic global warming (not everyone agrees with Ruddiman though )

On the other hand, as I've mentioned on other forums, the climate police do seem to have decided that Carbon alone is responsible for the current climate crime wave, and aren't bothering to seek any further suspects.

If you ask me I'd be getting getting the likes Defforestation, Urbanisation and Aviation in for questioning pretty soon..... Maybe we could do better in tackling them than Carbon?

[crimsone]

getting the likes Defforestation ... in for questioning pretty soon.....

I hope so - It would be nice to be able to tell future generations of the Amazon rainforest and the mighty Amazon river, rather than the Amazon copse/bracken andt the cuet little babbling brook that flows below it.

[Guest Mike W]

The solutions to this warming are well known, if 'they' wanted to they could make things cooler, very quickly, but they haven't. I would go through the solutions, but it's already been done, by alot of people.

[Essan]

I should perhaps also add that I strongly suspect the above mentioned suspects have been added and abetted by the likes of Solar Cycles and Natural Oceanic and Atmospheric Oscillations (like ENSO, PDO, NAO, AMO etc)

IMO there's isn't 'a' cause - there are a whole variety of complexly interacting causes.

[Guest Daniel]

How does that account for the massive CO2 increases we have seen since the industrial revolution?

We know CO2 is rising, we know it warms the Earth and we know the Earth is indeed warming. So surely it is CO2 that is causing this rise. And we know that humans emit CO2. So you can deduce that it is humans causing the CO2 increase and thus the warming.

CO2 also comes from volcanos. Infact in the 19th century there was a very active volcanic period. at the time these volcanos cooled the world with there dust but its also poosible they gave out Carbon dixocide as well so when the dust cleared the earth warmed and today we have under water Volcanos going of. they give out vast amounts of carbon and heat. So its poosible the large rise in Carbon levels may be caused by natural events for which we have no control. Also in the Earths past carbon levels have been much higher than today and that did not stop freezing iceages form happing

[Ed Stone]

We've always had underwater eruptions, Daniel; they've happened ever since the oceans were formed...

There is absolutely no EVIDENCE that present-day undersea volanism is any more active than it's been in the past; in fact, it's almost certain that is less so! IMO, it doesn't really much matter how many 'natural' sources of atmospheric carbon there are; these things average out over time anyway? What does matter IMO, is that human civilization adds CO2 to the atmosphere in ADDITION to that which is produced 'naturally'...

In answer to the 'scepticism' of the major contributors to AGW, one question still remains: If 'natural' CO2 causes GW, then why doesn't humanity's contribution? Is it magic? Special? Conveniently non-reactive? Transparent to LW radiation?Somehow benign?

[Cloudburst]

Well TBH everything we have on this earth could eb classed as natural. I mean the stuff we are putting up came from the earth itself, and when you look at the carbon cycle, it always goes from one form to another. We are not helping the situation, but 1 supervolcano is the equivilent of about 10 years worth of pollution from humans. Think about how many volcanoes that there are active every minute of every day, throwing huge amounts of sulpur dioxide, Hydrocarbons etc. I mean the fossil fuels we burn are natural, the fumes and pollution they give off is natural not man made(by process it could be condsidered as man made), as you can find exaclty the same scenerio in volcanoes.

[Yeti]

What everyone seems to forget is that nature is (or was) balanced. There are (were) enough plants to cope with minor volcano eruptions, and with all other forms of natural CO2 emissions. Generally, this kept the CO2 emissions down, or at least in balance with the amount removed from the atmosphere. A large volcano disrupted the balance, and this had an effect on the climate (though the ash from the volcano probably had a much greater cooling effect). But life on Earth has not evolved to cope with human emissions of C02, and we do not produce aDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of me So we are disrupting the balance unsustainably IMO.

[Devonian]

CO2 also comes from volcanos. Infact in the 19th century there was a very active volcanic period. at the time these volcanos cooled the world with there dust but its also poosible they gave out Carbon dixocide as well so when the dust cleared the earth warmed and today we have under water Volcanos going of. they give out vast amounts of carbon and heat. So its poosible the large rise in Carbon levels may be caused by natural events for which we have no control. Also in the Earths past carbon levels have been much higher than today and that did not stop freezing iceages form happing

Frankly, it's just not even possible that volcanoes are responsible for the increase in CO2. Firstly, if you do the sums they show such a claim makes no sense - http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/...t-more-co2.html , secondly you can show, by the way the isotopic signiture of atmospheric CO2 has changed, that the extra CO2 is due to our activities.

Re past CO2 concentrations, you can't compare then with now. CO2 is a climate forcing, but, if you change the continents so they alter ocean currents (as they did at times in the past) that can profoundly effect world temperatures. However, that was then, this is now, you just can compare the distant past with now.

[Paranoid]

If there was a rise in C02 levels from the 19th century, it would proably be due to volcanoes. in 1815 there was the VEI 7 eruption of Tambora, and the VEI 6 eruption of Krakatau. In the early 20th century, there was also the VEI 6 eruptions of Santa Maria and Katmai. But still, the warming effects of the CO2 would have worn off by now.

[Guest Mike W]

The difference between us and a big volcanic eruption is that a big volcanic eruption usually emmits alot of SO2 and soot which causes alot of cooling, where as we now only emmit the CO2, where the volcano emmits both, and when it emmits the So2 and soot aswell, the SO2 and soot, win through causing cooling. We used to emmit both, now we only emmit the warming agents, and we wonder why CO2 levels have risen so much?

[Optimus Prime]

The solutions to this warming are well known, if 'they' wanted to they could make things cooler, very quickly, but they haven't. I would go through the solutions, but it's already been done, by alot of people.

If we went by your solutions we would be coughing on soot. I'd prefer to have cleanish air then have a slight possibility of cooling the winters down. Do you know how many people died in smogs of London and other cities around the world because of chimney pollution? And you're point of cooling the earth down by emitting huge ammounts of toxic pollution into the atmosphere is not only foolish but has no baseline for proof.

There are millions of reasons why the earths warming up, some we know and some we don't know.

[Guest Mike W]

What makes you think SO2 and soot was my solution, Iron fertilization, which plankton producing which reduces CO2 levels, is one solution and another is reducing the amount we emmit, through things like Nuclear power, producing hydrogen fuel aswell as wind, solar, tidal geo-thermal etc, I have not said anything about emmiting soot and So2, all I said is that with hindsight we should have tried to reduce CO2 levels first then reduce So2 levels after, I cetrtainly would not condone emmiting So2 or soot and I cetrtainly haven't said it on this thread either. Incinertors at land fill sites are neceassary, but must have a CO2 trapping system with it. And yes recycling is also necessary.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Of course all these arguments are just conjecture. Where does it say that CO2 increases are the cause of warming and not a consequence? This hasn't been proved/disproved by anyone yet. Why does Mars have frozen polar caps with a CO2 atmosphere? Distance from the sun maybe? Too many unanswered questions and contradicting scientific opinions and I remain very firmly on the fence.

Pete, you are probably right re underwater volcanoes with there being no proof of it being more active now than in the past...but in the same breath how can you say it is probable there is less activity now?

BFTP

[Ed Stone]

Pete, you are probably right re underwater volcanoes with there being no proof of it being more active now than in the past...but in the same breath how can you say it is probable there is less activity now?

BFTP

Good question.

It's because the supply of radioisotopes within the Earth's interior, that drive Plate Tectonic activity, is always being depleted...Eventually all plate movement will cease, as a result of this depletion.

[Stratos Ferric]

Didn't know which thread to post this in, so I thought I'd start a new one!

I was wondering last night whether "we" had all got lots of stuff wrong and were overcomplicating something which has a very simple answer. Seeing as scientists come up with conflicting theories I wondered if everyone was barking up the wrong tree(s) and if the reason for global climate change/shift was something totally simple:

The Earth wobbles on it's axis, doesn't it? Could it not just be that the Earth's climate responds to how much/ which bits are "getting" the most Sun? Or how close we are to the Sun? Slightly greater or lesser distance from the Sun would also mean that the heat which the Earth gets from the Sun would be received, stored and released in different ways, according to Earth's position, and this would affect climate.

As has been said before, by others, massive climate changes/shifts have ocurred in the past without any help from mankind. I just can't help thinking that maybe scientists have become so wrapped up in their own ideas and in dissecting every little morsel of information that they could be missing the blindingly obvious?

It can happen, y'know!

Those are all plausible factors, and as Essan points out, all are known about. What's more, with the sophisticated telemetry now available it begars belief that astronomers around the world would not notice an orbit wibble if only for the fact that their carefully programmed and aligned tracking elescopes would all suddenly be off target. We wobble, but the rest of the universe doesn't wobble in harmony with us.