Quote: An ice core about two miles long — the oldest frozen sample ever drilled from the underbelly of Antarctica — shows that at no time in the last 650,000 years have levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane been as high as they are today. The research, published in today's issue of the journal Science, describes the content of the greenhouse gases within the core and shows that carbon dioxide levels today are 27% higher than they have been in the last 650,000 years and levels of methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, are 130% higher, said Thomas Stocker, a climate researcher at the University of Bern and senior member of the European team that wrote two papers based on the core. The work provides more evidence that human activity since the Industrial Revolution has significantly altered the planet's climate system, scientists said. "This is saying, 'Yeah, we had it right.' We can pound on the table harder and say, 'This is real,' " said Richard Alley, a Penn State University geophysicist and expert on ice cores who was not involved with the analysis. ...Here are a few other sources for the story. Bern researchers drill deep into climate history Old bubbles back global warming theory Sea level rise doubles in 150 years Do you think this additional information will convice skeptics? What more information do you think will convince them? Do you think this information will prompt any policy changes in the USA or other countries? What questions does this new information raise for you?
650,000 Years of Carbon Dioxide Can't Be Wrong
Author
New research published today shows that levels of greenhouse gases are higher today than they have been in the last 650,000 years, adding more evidence to support the idea that human economic activity is producing global warming.
Core Evidence That Humans Affect Climate Change
I didnt read the article just the quote you had in your post and the only mention of climate change is from the professor claiming climate change.
All it tells me is that there is more carbon dioxide and methane in the air. No big surprise considering there are more people on the planet now than there were 650,000 years ago.
[sarcasm]
Blame China and India for having too many people.
[/sarcasm]
All it tells me is that there is more carbon dioxide and methane in the air. No big surprise considering there are more people on the planet now than there were 650,000 years ago.
[sarcasm]
Blame China and India for having too many people.
[/sarcasm]
Quote:Original post by cmptrgear
I didnt read the article just the quote you had in your post and the only mention of climate change is from the professor claiming climate change.
All it tells me is that there is more carbon dioxide and methane in the air. No big surprise considering there are more people on the planet now than there were 650,000 years ago.
[sarcasm]
Blame China and India for having too many people.
[/sarcasm]
I don't understand your complaint. Are you asking for a stronger connection between greenhouse gasses and global climate change?
I'd like to see more enviromentally friendly vehicles and industrial complexes, but at a glance I don't see how it says humans have been a major factor in this. No shit greenhouse gas levels are higher today, but how have they risen? Has it been a gradual process since 650,00 years ago?
The article also mentioned that the levels were as high or higher tens of millions of years ago. So how do we know it's not a natural fluctuation? The article also mentions that the levels are rising faster than they would that long ago, but there are new processes coming into affect. There are a whole lot of trees and plants, and when they burn, they release greenhouse gasses.
I'm not trying to refute things, I'm just putting out some possible alternatives.
The article also mentioned that the levels were as high or higher tens of millions of years ago. So how do we know it's not a natural fluctuation? The article also mentions that the levels are rising faster than they would that long ago, but there are new processes coming into affect. There are a whole lot of trees and plants, and when they burn, they release greenhouse gasses.
I'm not trying to refute things, I'm just putting out some possible alternatives.
My complaint is with the title of the article
Core Evidence That Humans Affect Climate Change
The article actually has nothing to do with evidence that humans affect climate change. Instead if talks about how an ice core shows that there is more carbon dioxide and methane now than 650,000 years ago. It's a misleading article title.
Wheter carbon dioxide and methane affect the climate is another story. I don't really care whether it does one way or another.
Core Evidence That Humans Affect Climate Change
The article actually has nothing to do with evidence that humans affect climate change. Instead if talks about how an ice core shows that there is more carbon dioxide and methane now than 650,000 years ago. It's a misleading article title.
Wheter carbon dioxide and methane affect the climate is another story. I don't really care whether it does one way or another.
Quote:Original post by LessBread
The work provides more evidence that human activity since the Industrial Revolution has significantly altered the planet's climate system, scientists said. "This is saying, 'Yeah, we had it right.' We can pound on the table harder and say, 'This is real,' " said Richard Alley, a Penn State University geophysicist and expert on ice cores who was not involved with the analysis.
Reasonable and scientifically inexorable conclusion, overwhelmingly supported by facts and evidence:
Observation 1: Greenhouse gases are higher now than ever before.
Observation 2: Human economic activity is higher now than ever before.
Conclusion: Human economic activity is responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases.
Absurdist tripe spewed only by skeptics and the blind:
Observation 1: Greenhouse gases are higher now than ever before.
Observation 2: X (where X is not "human economic activity") is higher now than ever before.
Conclusion: X is responsible is for the increase in greenhouse gases.
Yep, I'm convinced!
Quote:Original post by cmptrgearSo, you're not disputing the link between the gasses and the climate so much as the link between humans and the gasses? That's actually a good point, but I bet you wouldn't argue that we aren't exactly doing everything we can. [wink]
My complaint is with the title of the article
Core Evidence That Humans Affect Climate Change
The article actually has nothing to do with evidence that humans affect climate change. Instead if talks about how an ice core shows that there is more carbon dioxide and methane now than 650,000 years ago. It's a misleading article title.
Wheter carbon dioxide and methane affect the climate is another story. I don't really care whether it does one way or another.
I've heard about this in the news, shocking indeed. It only shows that it is definitely time to seriously do something against this trend. And quick.
No.
If they'd suffocate by simply going outside without an O2 mask, then they might realize that something might be slightly anormal. And even then, they'd probably blame it onto a "completely normal natural process".
Oh, but if destroying the environment doesn't give them profits anymore. That would of course convince them in the blink of an eye.
No.
I hope so. Many countries are already on a good way. But it's important that China and India realize this. It's our duty as the "first world" to guide them there, by supplying the appropriate technology (such as CO2 and particle filters).
Quote:Original post by LessBread
Do you think this additional information will convice skeptics?
No.
Quote:
What more information do you think will convince them?
If they'd suffocate by simply going outside without an O2 mask, then they might realize that something might be slightly anormal. And even then, they'd probably blame it onto a "completely normal natural process".
Oh, but if destroying the environment doesn't give them profits anymore. That would of course convince them in the blink of an eye.
Quote:
Do you think this information will prompt any policy changes in the USA
No.
Quote:
or other countries?
I hope so. Many countries are already on a good way. But it's important that China and India realize this. It's our duty as the "first world" to guide them there, by supplying the appropriate technology (such as CO2 and particle filters).
Author
Quote:Original post by cmptrgear
My complaint is with the title of the article - Core Evidence That Humans Affect Climate Change - The article actually has nothing to do with evidence that humans affect climate change. Instead if talks about how an ice core shows that there is more carbon dioxide and methane now than 650,000 years ago. It's a misleading article title.
The article title isn't misleading at all. These cores confirm prior evidence showing that human activity has produced the surge in levels of greenhouse gases. Moreover, the argument is that carbon dioxide and methane levels are higher today than they have ever been during the last 650,000 years. That's not the same as comparing today to a point 650,000 years ago as you have restated it.
Quote:Original post by cmptrgear
Wheter carbon dioxide and methane affect the climate is another story. I don't really care whether it does one way or another.
Yes, it is another story, about a connection that is already widely accepted.
It looks like the answer to the first question I raised is no. Skeptics will remain unconvinced. It also looksl like the answer to my second question is that there is nothing that will convince them because they won't let any evidence convince them otherwise.
Author
Quote:Original post by kSquaredQuote:Original post by LessBread
The work provides more evidence that human activity since the Industrial Revolution has significantly altered the planet's climate system, scientists said. "This is saying, 'Yeah, we had it right.' We can pound on the table harder and say, 'This is real,' " said Richard Alley, a Penn State University geophysicist and expert on ice cores who was not involved with the analysis.
Reasonable and scientifically inexorable conclusion, overwhelmingly supported by facts and evidence:
Observation 1: Greenhouse gases are higher now than ever before.
Observation 2: Human economic activity is higher now than ever before.
Conclusion: Human economic activity is responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases.
Absurdist tripe spewed only by skeptics and the blind:
Observation 1: Greenhouse gases are higher now than ever before.
Observation 2: X (where X is not "human economic activity") is higher now than ever before.
Conclusion: X is responsible is for the increase in greenhouse gases.
Yep, I'm convinced!
You raise a good point. What else could account for current levels of greenhouse gases? Forest fires? Volcanos? Perhaps those phenomena could account for C02 levels, but what about methane levels? I doubt bovine flatulance would do it...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
