Is Human Activity Impacting The Global and Local Climates At All?

I am really interested in knowing if and to what extent you think human activities are influencing our climate.

I am not talking about just a warming trend necessarily but rather an imbalance or disruption to normal weather and climatic patterns. Are we responsible some how for a climate with more spikes, ie. prolonged winters, hotter summers, more drastic temperature fluxuations within shorter periods, more hurricanes per season, less arctic ice, higher rainfall or snowfall amounts, delays in the onset of spring or later comings of fall, more intense ultraviolet light from damaged ozone layer. And the biggie changes to Ocean currents and flows that are responsible for el-nino, or el-nina and ultimately our local weather and climate.

Are we to blame for any of this or is everything that I've noticed changing since my childhood well within normal functioning Earthly parameters?

We hear conspiracists say global warming is nothing new; our earth is fine. Is it? I don't know what to believe anymore. Scientists who lied in e-mails now polarizing the globe with regards to the debate.

It feels like things have changed for the worst. It seems the demarcations between seasons has blurred. As comedian Rick Mercer put it it seems like we get one month of weather, that is Novapuary. Cold, to warm and windy, to rainy, wet snowy, then rainy and then sunny warm, back to cold windy. I have noticed our already short summer season is now much wetter and more overcast than in the past.

Anybody else notice climate changes from their childhoods? I find it hard to believe that with humans greedily bull dozing and erecting away in the name of progress that there is no serious climatic damage and or change occurring. However I can't say this with any degree of certainty.

I'm not really on the fence, I have my suspicions, but I don't know for sure anymore.

I want to know what the two opposing sides of this argument think!


[edit on 12-2-2010 by sparrowstail]

Many people would agree saying that HAARP - a human creation, is one of our ways to disrupt the weather. Your probably aware of this, of how whenever it's on full blast - some type of natural disaster always occurs.

Or...maybe someone already made a secret weather machine? I'm all up for that one.

On the other hand, there are definately people who believe it isn't occuring. Many believe that we're falling into an Ice Age. Others believe it's just the normal pattern of the planet.

[edit on 12/2/2010 by BlackPoison94]

reply to post by sparrowstail


I haven't done a single bit of first-hand research, nor have I looked at other people's evidence or arguments. Instead of placing my trust in one, none or both sides of a debate in which zealous combatants of all sides inculcate a strange kind of deeply filial bond to their opinions, what I have done is rely on common sense; that strain of cynical, optimistic and humble logic that always remains untainted from the virulent subject matter at hand.

The Earth's climate will always be changing, but the crowd remains predictably the same. People love to get whipped up into a frenzy about doomsday scenarios; it makes them feel important. Even more, they love announcing dramatic platitudes or flaunting trivial acts in response to the problem of the day (just check Twitter); this makes them seem selfless, anti-elitist and egalitarian, and thereby makes them popular. These twin tactics have historically always brought lots of empty souls together; look at the G20 protests for example. I guess that every individual there felt both important and popular.

That is why I am cynical about the global warmongering lobby. I would require an incontestable burden of proof before I agree to give away Mt. Everest sized chunks of money to incompetent third-world leaders that promise to use the money to sacrifice their own growth and economy, and to sit around and build solar panels instead. All of that to find out one year later that they were lying all along, thinking it a much better investment to purchase several thousand gold-plated AK47s.

I do think action is necessary to reduce our negative impact on the Earth. Crucially, we just need to keep to ourselves and I offer one example in support of that idea. Land situated next to a nature reserve behind my town has been left to fallow indefinitely by the local landowner. Within a couple of years, the result is that a beautiful meadow has sprung up and the riverside edges are now populated by a thicket of adolescent foliage. Playing children, hikers and dog walkers have trod a scenic footpath through the middle, and the local deer can be heard courting in the area during many summer nights. Species once endemic to the area can now spread back.

reply to post by sparrowstail


One good example is the Aral Sea - this has virtually dried up as a result of human activity (no-one disputes this)

As the Aral Sea evaporated, it left behind a 40 000 sq km zone of dry, white salt terrain now called the Aral Karakum Desert. Each year violent sandstorms pick up at least 150 000 tonnes of salt and sand from the Aral Karakum and transport it across hundreds of km, causing severe health problems for the local population and making regional winters colder and summers hotter. In an attempt to mitigate these effects, vegetation that thrives in dry, saline conditions is being planted in the former seabed.

Another example is the effect cities have on rainfall

Using the world's first space-based rain radar aboard NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite, Shepherd and colleagues found that mean monthly rainfall rates within 30-60 kilometers (18 to 36 miles) downwind of the cities were, on average, about 28 percent greater than the upwind region. In some cities, the downwind area exhibited increases as high as 51 percent.

There is also, for example, suggestion that cultivation changed the monsoon in Asia in the 18th century.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Essan]

Originally posted by BlackPoison94
Many people would agree saying that HAARP - a human creation, is one of our ways to disrupt the weather. Your probably aware of this, of how whenever it's on full blast - some type of natural disaster always occurs.

Or...maybe someone already made a secret weather machine? I'm all up for that one.

On the other hand, there are definately people who believe it isn't occuring. Many believe that we're falling into an Ice Age. Others believe it's just the normal pattern of the planet.

[edit on 12/2/2010 by BlackPoison94]

I know, this is what I find so baffling. Which is it? That HAARP is one mysterious piece of tech. I would seriously like to know the extent of it's capabilities.

blackpoison beat me to it. I was going to tell you all about HAARP. The eivl gubbament. Them, "They" those people, the Illuminati, the bad man, all the same people who secretly control the weather to cause "changes" that could only be described as un-natural.

Or it could just be that the Earth goes through cycles of weather patterns and will continue to do so long after the last human has turned into a diamond, or a gallon of sweet crude.

reply to post by Essan


you know, you and I don't agree on this subject at all, but it seems to me that at least 90% of the problems people on your side bring up are directly related to de-forestation. That is such an easy fix to a seemingly insurmountable problem that it boggles the mind. Not only do we need to leave the trees in place around highly populated areas, we should be planting more. Think about it, everyone like trees, they are pleasing to look at, they scrub the air, they hold the earth together with their roots. rather than push for carbon credits, or stopping the entire earth from eating meat to limit farts, (I don't mean these are your ideas, just your side) this should be adopted as the new fix. You could spearhead this effort and call it the Essan Fix. A Nobel prize would be in your near future.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by sparrowstail

 

I haven't done a single bit of first-hand research, nor have I looked at other people's evidence or arguments. Instead of placing my trust in one, none or both sides of a debate in which zealous combatants of all sides inculcate a strange kind of deeply filial bond to their opinions, what I have done is rely on common sense; that strain of cynical, optimistic and humble logic that always remains untainted from the virulent subject matter at hand.

The Earth's climate will always be changing, but the crowd remains predictably the same. People love to get whipped up into a frenzy about doomsday scenarios; it makes them feel important. Even more, they love announcing dramatic platitudes or flaunting trivial acts in response to the problem of the day (just check Twitter); this makes them seem selfless, anti-elitist and egalitarian, and thereby makes them popular. These twin tactics have historically always brought lots of empty souls together; look at the G20 protests for example. I guess that every individual there felt both important and popular.

That is why I am cynical about the global warmongering lobby. I would require an incontestable burden of proof before I agree to give away Mt. Everest sized chunks of money to incompetent third-world leaders that promise to use the money to sacrifice their own growth and economy, and to sit around and build solar panels instead. All of that to find out one year later that they were lying all along, thinking it a much better investment to purchase several thousand gold-plated AK47s.

I do think action is necessary to reduce our negative impact on the Earth. Crucially, we just need to keep to ourselves and I offer one example in support of that idea. Land situated next to a nature reserve behind my town has been left to fallow indefinitely by the local landowner. Within a couple of years, the result is that a beautiful meadow has sprung up and the riverside edges are now populated by a thicket of adolescent foliage. Playing children, hikers and dog walkers have trod a scenic footpath through the middle, and the local deer can be heard courting in the area during many summer nights. Species once endemic to the area can now spread back.

Nicely put, it seems safe to say that you take a pretty much common sense approach but seem to lean to the nay saying camp on human climate impact? If development isn't too extreme and extensive then things can revert back to nature. But what about the large cities and smog and factories and smoke stacks and strip mines, and a bazillion cars spewing fumes into the air. Any effect here?? This is what I am trying to determine. Is our combined footprint changing nature. ANd don't forget humanity is just getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

reply to post by Essan


Yes, I have read about desertification, although I don't know if this is the technical term for dried up sea. I have read (don't know if true or not) that if the climatic currents in the oceans change dramatically that it could casue large temperate areas to become deserts and vice versa, could be disinfo but seems logical.

The rainfall snippit is fascinating, It seems we're creating a rain shadow effect with our cities or our smog and pollution. Very interesting, but kinda disturbing
thanks

reply to post by network dude


I take it you think the latter is true and the Earth is just going through normal growing pains?

reply to post by network dude


I agree trees rock. Imagine New York without Central Park?

fisher.osu.edu...

It is impossible for human activity NOT to have an impact on ecology, and thus the climate.

It is equally impossible for any living organism NOT to have an impact.

Nowadays, the heated debate is about the nature and intensity of that impact. (And, I might add with a bit of a cynical tone, whether currency transactions actually can affect the environment)

reply to post by Maxmars


I remember reading that the equation used for economic growth didn't take into account the finite nature of natural resources. I thought what a shame for the Earth.

reply to post by sparrowstail


We have two choices: a half-billion people can live moderately and do no damage to the environment, but for four or six billion to exist they must live pre-industrial lifestyles, including using small areas of land. Our primary enemy regarding the environment is land overuse, a direct consequence of overpopulation. If we limit ourselves, we live well. If we do not, we live in poverty and eventually doom ourselves through the breeding of others. We face a choice on this issue between living comfortably with some room to spare, and living on the edge of disaster and pushing our environment to retaliate against us. Note that with a half-billion people of intellectual quality and character none of our inventions or art or culture would be impeded.

Believe me I know how cruel this sounds.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by sparrowstail

 

We have two choices: a half-billion people can live moderately and do no damage to the environment, but for four or six billion to exist they must live pre-industrial lifestyles, including using small areas of land.

We face a choice on this issue between living comfortably with some room to spare, and living on the edge of disaster and pushing our environment to retaliate against us.

Note that with a half-billion people of intellectual quality and character none of our inventions or art or culture would be impeded.

Believe me I know how cruel this sounds.

I does sound cruel but it makes for good reading. As disturbing as your response sounds it does have some merit. I have always had a bit of luddite
in me. I guess chalk one up for the Omish and Mennonites.

I can't help but wonder what endearing qualities humanity builds by administering to the poor and suffering through overpopulation. I just find ithard to accept killing off all those poor and suffering people. As bad as their lives are they still are probably grateful for life.

Man may make a mess of things, pollute, throw garbage around, divert the course of rivers and streams, but do the activities of man change global weather patterns? A resounding NO..

Is CO2 produced by man's activities having any effect... NO!

The two primary things that control the weather on Earth are the Sun, (which the so called climate scientists totally ignored), and Volcanoes. I would say the next thing would be the small changes in the tilt of the Earth caused by the precession of the equinoxes.

So we may end up dying from our own pollution..but we are not going to change the climate enough to ever need to worry about.

reply to post by expat2368

Thanks for your resounding no. Interesting take on the question. I hope for all our sakes your right. Unless the whole 2012 solar flare thing comes to pass. Then God help us all

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Essan

 

you know, you and I don't agree on this subject at all

no, but we disagree in a friendly and civil manner. I like that

, but it seems to me that at least 90% of the problems people on your side bring up are directly related to de-forestation. That is such an easy fix to a seemingly insurmountable problem that it boggles the mind.

I totally agree.

But I think the problem is that deforestation occurs in developing nations - and they do it for (short term) financial gain to improve their economy. Therefore the 'west' feel they cannot tell them to stop doing it - even though it's the people who are doing the deforestation that suffer the worst consequences of their actions (the Haitians being a good (bad) example in 2008).

Meanwhile all the media and political attention is on carbon emission derived global warming - which may not be much of a problem and in any case isn't one we're going to solve any decade soon. I blame Gore .....

reply to post by Essan


You might find this interesting.

Originally posted by Essan
I blame Gore .....

on this we are in total agreement. I think our positions are not that far off, other than I am right and all.

It would be nice for some alternative fuel to be adopted so we could just ignore this whole thing altogether. Imagine if we could put the energy people use to debate GW to some real use like finding how to use the sun's energy in a cheap and useful way. It's free and out there every day. Shame to waste it.