|
Post by thermostat on May 18, 2011 3:34:16 GMT
Have we entered a new era where human activities have substantial effects on climate? "The Anthropocene". A recent Nature report, "Human influence comes of age" sets the stage. www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/473133a.htmlWhat is the impact of human activity on climate?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 18, 2011 4:01:13 GMT
thermostat: There is no question that human activity, animal activity etc affect climate. The question really boils down to sensativity. I know the IPCC indicates that it is 3.0C as an average.
Well, that number is not realisitic....as more is being learned about the mistaken parimiters that the climat models are run on.
The radiation budget is being tied in knots right now as the measured radiation leaving is more than the models imply.
So.......to answer your question......the impact is not nearly as severe as some would have you believe.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 18, 2011 4:14:09 GMT
thermostat: There is no question that human activity, animal activity etc affect climate. The question really boils down to sensativity. I know the IPCC indicates that it is 3.0C as an average. Well, that number is not realisitic....as more is being learned about the mistaken parimiters that the climat models are run on. The radiation budget is being tied in knots right now as the measured radiation leaving is more than the models imply. So.......to answer your question......the impact is not nearly as severe as some would have you believe. sigurdur, Let me suggest that a useful comparison for present events be with climate change that caused the most recent ice age. Humans didn't substantially affect that.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 18, 2011 4:43:33 GMT
What is the impact of human activity on climate?
|
|
|
Post by breakingitdown on May 18, 2011 5:19:08 GMT
go back 100,000 years and add up every single twig leaf branch vine and tree that every human ever burned also every forest fire ever started since 100,000 years ago every farm burned every village burned ... theres a good piece of the pie ; ) not to mention burning oil methane propane butane over the last 300 years. humans have done a lot. i guess u can add breathing and farting as well.
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 18, 2011 7:26:42 GMT
i guess u can add breathing and farting as well. Breathing, as part of the circle of life, is a wash, but farting does increase the GHG potential of the carbon about 23 times over 100(?) years.
|
|
|
Post by richard on May 18, 2011 7:43:57 GMT
thermostat: There is no question that human activity, animal activity etc affect climate. The question really boils down to sensativity. I know the IPCC indicates that it is 3.0C as an average. Well, that number is not realisitic....as more is being learned about the mistaken parimiters that the climat models are run on. The radiation budget is being tied in knots right now as the measured radiation leaving is more than the models imply. So.......to answer your question......the impact is not nearly as severe as some would have you believe. To start off, I agree with your framing of the issue. Next, you mention things which are probably problems being worked on as we speak. Are the errors or inaccuracies increasing or decreasing in size over time? I think they are decreasing. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 18, 2011 12:28:57 GMT
Have we entered a new era where human activities have substantial effects on climate? "The Anthropocene". A recent Nature report, "Human influence comes of age" sets the stage. www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/473133a.htmlWhat is the impact of human activity on climate? The Nature report is total bullshit Thermostat. It is another attempt by the ideologists with yet another 'man-made label' (The Anthropocene) to slap on the same lie which violates the laws of physics. The Earth is 71% seawater. Three-fourths of our world is covered in water. So tell me, exactly where are human beings supposed to live and grow food except on land masses which produce it? Do you think everyone is stupid? That we cannot see that this 'new label' is being designed, prepped and staged to continue the ongoing lie of AGW so ideologists - who cannot forecast - can continue their hijacking and fleecing of climate science (now geology) at the expense of the world? The entire history of Earth has always had human beings on the planet. We are not some after-thought species that deserves to be treated as shit so AGW ideologists can attempt to insert humans into an geological 'age' in their slanderous attempts to graft the lie of anthropogenic global warming into climate history as fact. Why is it that you and your ideologue pals want to blame humans for everything? Why do you hate the human race so much as to deny the laws of thermodynamics? Human beings cannot alter the Earth's climate. We cannot force climate change on a planetary scale. That is done by the Sun and there is nothing - not a single thing - that humanity can do to stop it. All we can do is to forecast and prepare ourselves for future climate shifts. That is where all resources should go and no resources - not a penny - should be spent on the ideological crap that is AGW. Those are facts and the laws of thermodynamics cannot be altered at all.When are you going to stop drinking the AGW kool-aid?
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on May 18, 2011 18:01:38 GMT
Maybe it is best to think of the Anthropocene as a period that started with the first large-scal land use changes caused by humans?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2011 18:50:27 GMT
sigurdur,
Let me suggest that a useful comparison for present events be with climate change that caused the most recent ice age. Humans didn't substantially affect that.
And that is the best argument against declaring the "anthropocene". The jury is still out as to whether we can affect that and substantially change the pattern the earth has gone through over the past 1/2 million years and really only in the mind of biggest radicals can we. Arguing over a few tenths of a degree of AGW certainly seems insignificant in the larger scheme of things and that seems mirrored by public opinion.
Arbitrarily buying hook, line, and sinker into a Ptolemy-like correlation model like orbital variation and thus discarding the lionshare of natural change from debates on climate change is really takes the debate out of proportion. So really anthropocene remains mostly a fairytale land concept.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 19, 2011 21:54:34 GMT
Have we entered a new era where human activities have substantial effects on climate? "The Anthropocene". A recent Nature report, "Human influence comes of age" sets the stage. www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/473133a.htmlWhat is the impact of human activity on climate? The Nature report is total bullshit Thermostat. It is another attempt by the ideologists with yet another 'man-made label' (The Anthropocene) to slap on the same lie which violates the laws of physics. The Earth is 71% seawater. Three-fourths of our world is covered in water. So tell me, exactly where are human beings supposed to live and grow food except on land masses which produce it? Do you think everyone is stupid? That we cannot see that this 'new label' is being designed, prepped and staged to continue the ongoing lie of AGW so ideologists - who cannot forecast - can continue their hijacking and fleecing of climate science (now geology) at the expense of the world? The entire history of Earth has always had human beings on the planet. We are not some after-thought species that deserves to be treated as shit so AGW ideologists can attempt to insert humans into an geological 'age' in their slanderous attempts to graft the lie of anthropogenic global warming into climate history as fact. Why is it that you and your ideologue pals want to blame humans for everything? Why do you hate the human race so much as to deny the laws of thermodynamics? Human beings cannot alter the Earth's climate. We cannot force climate change on a planetary scale. That is done by the Sun and there is nothing - not a single thing - that humanity can do to stop it. All we can do is to forecast and prepare ourselves for future climate shifts. That is where all resources should go and no resources - not a penny - should be spent on the ideological crap that is AGW. Those are facts and the laws of thermodynamics cannot be altered at all.When are you going to stop drinking the AGW kool-aid? Astromet Regarding the Nature report you wrote, "The Nature report is total bullshit Thermostat." It was written in response to a meeting held in London on May 11 and sponsored by the Geological Society of London; www.geolsoc.org.uk/anthropoceneconfThe PDF's posted here provide some context for this discussion which originally traces back to the end of the 19th century, but most recently was re-initiated by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen . You wrote, "Do you think everyone is stupid? That we cannot see that this 'new label' is being designed, prepped and staged to continue the ongoing lie of AGW so ideologists - who cannot forecast - can continue their hijacking and fleecing of climate science (now geology) at the expense of the world?" (I definitely do not think that Paul Crutzen is stupid.) Related to the Geological Society of London meeting, the March 13 issue of Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A) was devoted to a series of papers on The Anthropocene. It looks like the Introduction is available for free. rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2011/anthropocene.xhtml (click on "read" and then "read the introduction for free".
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 19, 2011 22:03:24 GMT
Will Steffen, one of the speakers at the Geological Society of London May 11 event, has a video on You Tube where he describes various lines of evidence supporting the designation of the Anthropocene as a new geoligical epoch. He describes a number of significant effects of human activity, not limited to climate change. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABZjlfhN0EQThe discussion of mass extinctions is interesting. Such events have historically been used to define new geologic epochs.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 19, 2011 22:11:49 GMT
sigurdur,
Let me suggest that a useful comparison for present events be with climate change that caused the most recent ice age. Humans didn't substantially affect that.
And that is the best argument against declaring the "anthropocene". The jury is still out as to whether we can affect that and substantially change the pattern the earth has gone through over the past 1/2 million years and really only in the mind of biggest radicals can we. Arguing over a few tenths of a degree of AGW certainly seems insignificant in the larger scheme of things and that seems mirrored by public opinion. Arbitrarily buying hook, line, and sinker into a Ptolemy-like correlation model like orbital variation and thus discarding the lionshare of natural change from debates on climate change is really takes the debate out of proportion. So really anthropocene remains mostly a fairytale land concept. icefisher, I suggest that you take a look at the information linked in the previous 2 posts to see the rationalle for a new geological epoch. There is a history to this discussion that ought be be considered as well. It does not appear that the scientific discussion is arbitrary or trivial but rather relates to traditional criteria for defining geological epochs; in particular whether/how those criteria apply in the present case.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on May 19, 2011 22:15:34 GMT
The Nature report is total bullshit Thermostat. It is another attempt by the ideologists with yet another 'man-made label' (The Anthropocene) to slap on the same lie which violates the laws of physics. The Earth is 71% seawater. Three-fourths of our world is covered in water. So tell me, exactly where are human beings supposed to live and grow food except on land masses which produce it? Do you think everyone is stupid? That we cannot see that this 'new label' is being designed, prepped and staged to continue the ongoing lie of AGW so ideologists - who cannot forecast - can continue their hijacking and fleecing of climate science (now geology) at the expense of the world? The entire history of Earth has always had human beings on the planet. We are not some after-thought species that deserves to be treated as shit so AGW ideologists can attempt to insert humans into an geological 'age' in their slanderous attempts to graft the lie of anthropogenic global warming into climate history as fact. Why is it that you and your ideologue pals want to blame humans for everything? Why do you hate the human race so much as to deny the laws of thermodynamics? Human beings cannot alter the Earth's climate. We cannot force climate change on a planetary scale. That is done by the Sun and there is nothing - not a single thing - that humanity can do to stop it. All we can do is to forecast and prepare ourselves for future climate shifts. That is where all resources should go and no resources - not a penny - should be spent on the ideological crap that is AGW. Those are facts and the laws of thermodynamics cannot be altered at all.When are you going to stop drinking the AGW kool-aid? Astromet Regarding the Nature report you wrote, "The Nature report is total bullshit Thermostat." It was written in response to a meeting held in London on May 11 and sponsored by the Geological Society of London; www.geolsoc.org.uk/anthropoceneconfThe PDF's posted here provide some context for this discussion which originally traces back to the end of the 19th century, but most recently was re-initiated by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen . You wrote, "Do you think everyone is stupid? That we cannot see that this 'new label' is being designed, prepped and staged to continue the ongoing lie of AGW so ideologists - who cannot forecast - can continue their hijacking and fleecing of climate science (now geology) at the expense of the world?" (I definitely do not think that Paul Crutzen is stupid.) Related to the Geological Society of London meeting, the March 13 issue of Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A) was devoted to a series of papers on The Anthropocene. It looks like the Introduction is available for free. rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2011/anthropocene.xhtml (click on "read" and then "read the introduction for free" I'm well aware of 'anthropocene' propaganda Thermostat, however unlike you, I have strong powers of critical thinking and do not and will never drink the kool-aid. In short, what you are buying into is your own demise as a human being. You do realize this, do you not? You are being told that YOU are a threat to the planet. That your carbon body and the carbon you exhale - in fact, your very existence itself - is a threat to the Earth and so YOU must be eliminated. How can you be so gullible and utterly stupid?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on May 19, 2011 23:18:54 GMT
Astromet Regarding the Nature report you wrote, "The Nature report is total bullshit Thermostat." It was written in response to a meeting held in London on May 11 and sponsored by the Geological Society of London; www.geolsoc.org.uk/anthropoceneconfThe PDF's posted here provide some context for this discussion which originally traces back to the end of the 19th century, but most recently was re-initiated by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen . You wrote, "Do you think everyone is stupid? That we cannot see that this 'new label' is being designed, prepped and staged to continue the ongoing lie of AGW so ideologists - who cannot forecast - can continue their hijacking and fleecing of climate science (now geology) at the expense of the world?" (I definitely do not think that Paul Crutzen is stupid.) Related to the Geological Society of London meeting, the March 13 issue of Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A) was devoted to a series of papers on The Anthropocene. It looks like the Introduction is available for free. rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2011/anthropocene.xhtml (click on "read" and then "read the introduction for free" I'm well aware of 'anthropocene' propaganda Thermostat, however unlike you, I have strong powers of critical thinking and do not and will never drink the kool-aid. In short, what you are buying into is your own demise as a human being. You do realize this, do you not? You are being told that YOU are a threat to the planet. That your carbon body and the carbon you exhale - in fact, your very existence itself - is a threat to the Earth and so YOU must be eliminated. How can you be so gullible and utterly stupid? Astromet, When you refer to 'anthropocene propaganda' are you referring to the Geological Society of London or the UK's Royal Society? or both?
|
|