Climate change - natural or man-made?

[Desertdog]

The question is not answered yet.  I do believe the area I live in has warmed, but I do not believe that man had anything to do with it, with the eceptions of local area conditions.  It has been proven that big cities will increase the ambiant heat, and moisture from numours source,  which will cause more rain in their area.  I do not believe that an action in NYC will have any weather effects in LA.

Climate change - natural or man-made?
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=386230


New York City will be the site of the second annual International Conference on Climate Change.

The 2009 conference -- being hosted by the Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, Chicago-based think tank -- asks the question: "Global Warming: Was It Ever a Crisis?" More than 70 noted skeptics of man-induced climate change will be featured, and the event is expected to draw more than 1,000 attendees, including national and international political figures.
 
Dan Miller, executive vice president of Heartland Institute, says one of the featured speakers is Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, one of the last men to walk on the moon.
 
"Jack is somebody who has studied, as a geologist, global warming and climate change for many years," Miller explains, "and he is one of many skeptics who just doubts the severity and the causes of global warming -- especially as that fear is stated by alarmists, people who say that the earth is going to be drowning in melted glaciers and polar bears are going to die and so on."
 
According to Miller, the purpose of the conference is to show politicians and the public that the debate is not over. He adds that many scientists agree that climate change is natural.
 
"What is affecting this is not...mankind's contribution to [climate change]; that's insignificant," says the Heartland Institute spokesman. "What is significant are solar cycles on the sun, solar flares...solar wind. That is what really causes climate change here on the planet."
 
Other featured keynote speakers include John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, William Gray of Colorado State University, and Richard Lindzen of MIT. The conference will be held March 8-10.

[Nematocyst]

The correct answer is "both".

[gunsmith]

The correct answer is "both".

No, the correct answer is "It is Fistfuls fault" or "Bush new!"

[Nematocyst]

Hey, at least we agree that the question is justified. 

Translation: we acknowledge that climate is changing,
and that maybe - just maybe - we should prepare instead of blame.

Prepare? I've got .22, .38 spl, .357 mag & .30-30.

I'm now looking into .45-70, which is a better all-round rnd
for the north country where most will be moving 30 years from now.

[K Frame]

I agree, the answer is both.

[Jamisjockey]

Climate change?
Natural.  Totally natural.
Are we poisioning our environment?  Sure.  We should be better at recycling, cleaning things, renewable fuels, and what not.
But are we causing the 60billion year old earth's weather to change in only a few hundred years?
Ha!



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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Extinction

[280plus]

I've said this before but I've had the privelege in the past to become loosely associated with a world reknown geologist that said mankind was arrogant in thinking that it could have any great effect on the earth's environment. "If man ceased to exist the earth would forget he was ever here in just 100,000 years, a geological blink of the eye." Unfortunately his ashes are now scattered over some obscure Australian gold field. I sure do miss the old SOB. 

[AJ Dual]

Both, but my gut feeling is that it's approximately 90/10 nature/man-made.

The sun, Earth's long period orbital changes etc. have much more impact.

Although, certain conservative pundits who claim that man could never affect the climate are fools. Agriculture and animal husbandry has had detectable effects going back to the end of the stone age.

If we ended all animal husbandry, and sent out ships to dust the oceans with powdered iron to fertilize the algae, and increase CO2 sequestering, we could probably measure the effects of it in a few decades.

However, it's also my gut feeling we're entering an ice-age, and that human activity may have delayed it a tad. I'm somewhat comforted that as China and the rest of the third world industrializes, they'll keep pumping out the CO2, because all the climate-change do-gooders won't be able to stop them.

[Kwelz]

Man does indeed have a noticeable impact on the global climate.  Of course Noticeable does not mean large.  I agree with the above poster that it is probably about 90/10

[MillCreek]

Based on my reading to date as to the majority consensus in the scientific community, I also concur that climate change is largely a natural phenomenon but the activities of mankind have contributed in some measure.  To what degree the actions of man can substantially reverse or accelerate the phenomenon as opposed to natural action is still an open question in my view.  But I have no question that the man-made production of greenhouse gases has contributed to climate change.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm now looking into .45-70, which is a better all-round rnd
for the north country where most will be moving 30 years from now.

Do you really think we'll all have to move up north in the next 30 years?

[Tallpine]

Do you really think we'll all have to move up north in the next 30 years?

Us folks up north are already armed.  Don't need no new neighbors

[Desertdog]

Do you really think we'll all have to move up north in the next 30 years?

I believe so, but only if you want to stay COLD year around.  Other wise stay where you are and be happy with what you have.

In the 43 years I have been here, Upper Mojave Desert, climate has changed, for the better.  When I got here we had snow, sometime through the year.  The normal winter low was 16 F for the coldest time period..  Today's normal low is 35F for the low and 58 for the high, with the temp at 67F.  Middle of winter.

Do I expect 125F this summer?  No I don't.  How about 105 to 110F?  Yes, since we have gotten that kind of temps since I arrived here.  The winter lows have risen, but the summer highs do no seem to have risen nearly as much, if at all, thank God,

[slingshot]

Climate change is real.  The human industrial component is subject to speculation.  I believe that the human contribution to the equation is very small.  One significat volcanic eruption and we have global cooling for a couple years.  Hence it is something we humans should probably study, but there is little at this time we can do to modify climate change.

[Waitone]

Does climate change exist?  Yup!

Does humanity have something to do with it?  Arrogant question.

[Nematocyst]

Why is that an arrogant question, please, Waitone?

[Gewehr98]

Be very, very careful with your answer, Waitone.

Nem's waiting to jump on it. 

That should scare you.

[Nematocyst]

<Laugter> I see my reputation precedes me.  :rolleyes:

I'm a bit "jumped out" at the moment. Most of us know there's been a similar thread, also started by Deserdog, going on for weeks in which we've discussed these issues inside and out. Doesn't seem like much consensus is developing, though, does it?

I'm overwhelmed busy, and trying to limit my time about this issue on this and other forums right now.

I'm reading this one in large part to see what opinions are, what the logic is behind those opinions, etc.

I have a few thoughts, of course - no surprise there. Even a pointed question or two. But I'll just mostly read for now.

[Waitone]

Yeah, G98, I knew Capt. Nemo was out there.  And that is why I want to take my time preparing an answer. 

[Nematocyst]

Capt. Nemo, eh? <grins> You're confusing me with someone else.
I don't own a submarine.  :rolleyes: (Desert rat, I am.)

If anything, it would be Capt Nema, instead, but most just call me "Nem".

[Nematocyst]

But are we causing the 60billion year old earth's weather to change in only a few hundred years?

OK, I just read that mistake.
(Yeah, it's been another boring Saturday night.)

Earth has only existed for 5 billion years max.
Life on it for only 3.9 billion or so.

And we're not discussing weather here, but climate.

Those two are different.
Weather is what's happening outside now.
Climate is the long term average of weather.

Climate is poised to undergo a change
similar to what happens when water changes to steam.

Four letters: PETM.

[MicroBalrog]

Nema, pardon my ignorance:

What change is going to occur? What are we going to see and by what timeframe? I've seen multiple accounts.

More importantly:

If these things will not occur by that time fram, will that be proof that the theory was wrong?

[Nematocyst]

What change is going to occur? What are we going to see ...

This will still be Earth, but it will look and feel like a different planet.

By 2050, most continents south of 66* latitude will be rapidly moving towards desertification.
(That's based on simple physics. Above 77*F or so, soils don't hold water w/o daily rain.)

... and by what timeframe?

50 years max, with accelerating evidence at 10, 20, 30, and 40 years.

If these things will not occur by that time fram, will that be proof that the theory was wrong?

Yes. Unequivocally.

If you wake up on this day in 2050,
and it looks like this day in 2009,
then the hypothesis was wrong.

If it was wrong, party down and be happy.

If it's right, I recommend .45-70 and moving north.

[MicroBalrog]

Here is my theory:

1. Unless some incredible, groundbreaking new technology is discovered, it is not possible to sufficiently cut the levels of our CO2 emissions without serious cuts in the quality of life.

2. There are GIANT amounts of people in India and China experiencing economic growth, as well as some other countries. There are hundreds of millions of people who want to have flatscreen TVs and cars and houses and they will not be denied. Think Tata Nano x1000.

In journalist terms, the countries are 'experiencing rapid rises in the quality of life and consumption and are less environmentally conscious.' They will simply not accept it.

If indeed human-caused global warming is here, it's going to hapen, and, in the Architect's word,s there's nothing I can do about it. Or want to, really.

[Tuco]

And we're not discussing weather here, but climate.

Those two are different.
Weatheris what's happening outside now.
Climateis the long term average of weather.

Based on the climate records that are available (geologic), how can cyclical warming and cooling be attributed to mankind?

Geologic records may not show short term variation (being geologic, and all) but that does not mean there were no historic short period variations similar to the dramatic data recorded during recent history. 

The inclusion of fauna in our data (per your PETM link) is not relevant, as fauna are mobile, and the mobility is influenced by "weather".

 Pre-historic flora distribution offers a clearer picture of "climate".

Prehistoric flora distribution, unfortunately, is harder to ascertain.  Flora has no bones, and decomposes quickly, leaving little fossil evidence.  The data is buried deeper, more recent, questionable, and may not even exist on the intrawebz, because it doesn't support an agenda.

Media fueled drama queens tend toward the woolly mammoth, T Rex and other charismatic mega-fauna.

To answer your question in an easy, sound byte as you evidently desire, I offer this:

I believe mankind may have influenced the weather through industrial and commercial enterprise.  I believe the earth's climate is ever-changing, and will go in the direction it "wants" to, man's activity notwithstanding.

editied to remove error-