Global warming time warp

Just for arguments sake, lets say that 16,000 yrs ago, when the last significant glaciation of North America began its retreat, humans possesed a basic understanding of science and a form of mass media. Let's say they noticed the ice was retreating fast and the climate was becoming much warmer.

Here is a link that includes a film loop of the laurentide ice sheet retreat (begining 16,000 yrs ago).....

www.museum.state.il.us...

....and here is a brief web page describing glacial history.

www.museum.state.il.us...

Now...wouldn't those people have been very alarmed? And don't you suppose they would have predicted rising sea levels, extreme weather, drought? More forest fires? Unpredictable blizzards? And any other natural phenomena you want to blame on global warming?

Do you think they would have said we're doomed? Mother Earth is sick? What have we done to our planet? How can we survive?

Isn't that what most GW alarmist sheeple are saying now?

Didn't those humans.....who possesed no technology.... survive?

Of couse they did. And so will we.

Relax.

Bueller?........Bueller?.........Anyone?
No comments?

I think this demonstrates that when you understand the geological and climatological past, you must acknowledge that the environment and geography of the Earth are dymanic, and IMO humanity's small nudges have a negligable effect in the big picture.

[edit on 2/21/2007 by darkbluesky]

I think that our day and age, with the recorded history that we have, and with the boom of the 'Industrial' implication's , we realize that we are involved with the excelleration of the event. 16k years ago, weren't to many coal plants you know..

Well, people's imaginations do get away from them. Look at the modern day images presented when one considers the book of Revelation from the bible. People think up of worst case scenarios and present them as things that will actually happen. I am not debating whether the book of Revelation is true, only the severity of it.

Now, apply that to common perceptions about what climate change will bring. I believe that there is a current warming pattern of the earty occurring,but,I have to wonder what effect that is actually going to have on the earth.

The ice glaciers are melting. Okay... Where is all of the water going? Going by what many said 10-15 years ago, large portions of the coastlines should be underwater right now. Hasn't happened yet... When I say large portions, I mean entire coastal cities were predicted to be underwater by now. That's not to say it won't happen, but it certainly hasn't as of yet.

I think when we are dealing with things that are out of the frame of our reference, we tend to sensationalize it.

Originally posted by Allred5923
I think that our day and age, with the recorded history that we have, and with the boom of the 'Industrial' implication's , we realize that we are involved with the excelleration of the event. 16k years ago, weren't to many coal plants you know..

Yes, humans obviously have some role in accelerating climate change due to industrial age emissions, population growth, modern cattle farming practices, and deforestation. However, it is still my opinion, based on in depth review of the data on both side of the argument, that the impact humans have on climate change is negligable in comparison to natural occuring phenomena.

I think my position is supported by this concept: If modern humans possesing our current scientific understanding of climatology, and our current technology, were somehow transported back 16,000 years, and tried to stop or reverese the warming that was causing the last great glacial retreat, do you think they could have succeeded? I don't.

You see, our answer today is simply to stop burning fossil fuels. 16,000 years ago that would not have worked...no one was burning fossil fuels. So what caused the warming back then? Any what could present technology do to stop it? Present science and technology cannot even say with certainty what caused it.

Who's to say that whatever mechanism was casing the glaciers to retreat 16,000 years ago is not still in effect now, or could have resumed recently (last few hundred years)? Whose to say that same mechanism is not repsonsible for most of the current warming?

Everyone understands the greenhouse concept and recognizes its real. However no one has proven conclusively and quantitatively how much of the observed warming is a direct result of atmospheric CO2 and methane loading due to fossil fuel combustion. The ice record shows an increase in greenhouse gasses, but there is no soild quantifiable correlation between human contributions to the increase, or the relationship between the increase and temp rise.

There are estimates, but these are based on models and assumptions. The assumptions vary widely by researcher, and the model are in a constant state of modification.

Why are so many people trying to disprove that CO2 affects the temperature here on earth. The Global Warming trend is actually a climate shift. A severe one at that. If you look at data from all over the world, it demonstrates the amount of CO2's affect on the environment. All skeptics even state that CO2 effects the environment, then they double-talk and contradict themselves by stating that CO2 has no effect and there is no proof. There is proof. Look outside, there's your proof. Global Warming isn't a conspiracy, the government covering it up was the conspiracy. I bet you most of the people here on ATS said..."The government is hiding facts and documentation about Global Warming and we know it's real and it's been hidden for so long" Now, they say it's a hoax, because most of them can't see beyond their own nose.

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
Why are so many people trying to disprove that CO2 affects the temperature here on earth.

Alpha, I suspect it's about money. Unfortunately, most people are more concerned about the "economic welfare" of society, than they are about their or their children's future.. Unfortunately for them, when what they are doing now takes its toll, they are still going to want to blame other factors rather than casting any responsibility onto the psyche of the human race.

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
Why are so many people trying to disprove that CO2 affects the temperature here on earth. The Global Warming trend is actually a climate shift. A severe one at that. If you look at data from all over the world, it demonstrates the amount of CO2's affect on the environment.

No it does not.

I'm not sure if your comment is directed at me but let me respond. I was not trying to disprove that CO2 affects temp. Infact I stated that it's a proven process. I stated there is no conlusive or quantifiable evidence of

a) how much CO2 build up is human caused

and

b) how much of the observed temp rise is irrefutably atributed to CO2 buildup.

Are CO2 levels increasing? yes
Is the avergae global mean temp rising? yes
Are the two linked? yes
How much of the temp rise is due to CO2 loading? Nobody knows for sure.
How much of the CO2 increase is due to humans? Some....but know one knows exactly how much.

All skeptics even state that CO2 effects the environment, then they double-talk and contradict themselves by stating that CO2 has no effect and there is no proof.

Thats not what I said.

There is proof. Look outside, there's your proof. Global Warming isn't a conspiracy, the government covering it up was the conspiracy. I bet you most of the people here on ATS said..."The government is hiding facts and documentation about Global Warming and we know it's real and it's been hidden for so long" Now, they say it's a hoax, because most of them can't see beyond their own nose.

Lets try not to comment on ATS members, shall we? This is thread is about historical climate change and ratio of human caused warming to natural occuring warming.

The time machine needs to move forward, into the future a mere 20 years, to 2027. I hope I am still alive then when so many scientists end up with egg on their faces again. The reason: the climate change they predicted that was caused by human activities did not happen, or barely moved the global temperatures a measurable amount.

Historically, mainstream science has failed miserably with their predictions of doom and gloom, or of what is safe. Remember the "energy crisis" of the 1970s? We were completely running out of crude oil in the world. Global cooling was predicted, Agent Orange was a great and safe herbicide, but DDT must be banned because it's a dangerous pesticide. Tens of millions of people have died from that ban. The artificial sweetener Saccharin is dangerous, so we banned it. Swine flu shots killed more people than that variety of flu would have. Ah, we banned fluorocarbons, because they're destroying the ozone layer! Alar, a pesticide used on apples is unsafe. The safe diet drug redux gave many people heart problems before it was pulled off the market. For a while it seemed every drug the F.D.A. approved turned out to be fatal to many. We added MTBE to gasoline to reduce air pollution and polluted our water with it instead. Brilliant science? No.

Debating the science is entertaining, but I think that based only on scientific past performances, I would love to make a large futures bet against anthropogenic global warming having any meaningful impact on the planet 20 years from now. I am prepared to deal with the ridicule if I'm wrong. I wonder whether the A.G.W. believers are?

[edit on 4/15/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Debating the science is entertaining, but I think that based only on scientific past performances, I would love to make a large futures bet against anthropogenic global warming having any meaningful impact on the planet 20 years from now. I am prepared to deal with the ridicule if I'm wrong. I wonder whether the A.G.W. believers are?

I don't think ridicule is the right phrase, we'd just be wrong. But scientists are making bets on this issue...

An MIT meteorologist said three years ago that he would bet money that global average temperatures would cool back down in 20 years. The quote triggered a flurry of Internet dialogues and prompted scientists to challenge each other to make bets on climate-change issues.

One scientist took the wagering meteorologist, Richard Lindzen, up on his bet, but the deal fell apart over a disagreement about odds.

.....

While new to most of us, betting on global warming is old hat to some scientists.

In 2005, Annan offered to take Lindzen, the MIT meteorologist, up on his bet that global temperatures in 20 years will be cooler than they are now. However, no wager was ever settled on because Lindzen wanted odds of 50-to-1 in his favor. This meant that for a $10,000 bet, Annan would have to pay Lindzen the entire sum if temperatures dropped, but receive only $200 if they rose.

“Richard Lindzen’s words say that there is about a 50 percent chance of [global] cooling,” Annan wrote about the bet. “His wallet thinks it is a 2 percent shot. Which do you believe?”

Soon after, however, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, two Russian solar physicists who argue global temperatures are driven by changes in the Sun’s activity, agreed to Annan’s bet.

The two camps have agreed to compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018.

Since 2005, Annan said he has offered to make bets with other global warming skeptics. “There have been a few nibbles since but nothing substantial has turned up,” Annan said in an email interview.

Few climate scientists seem willing to bet against the effects of global warming. “A couple of colleagues have offers on the table, but there are no takers on the other side,” he added.

www.livescience.com...

Get in touch with Annan if you like, he'll take your money off you.


[edit on 15-4-2007 by melatonin]

Yes, I may do just that. I would enjoy taking Annan's money, since I'm quite sure my cousin Al Gore won't bet me. What I can afford is just pocket change to Al anyway. I'm willing to bet $1,000 or a little more. (don't tell my wife)

Hopefully, the funds can be held in escrow by a third party or something like that.


What Lindzen actually said is that it's about a 50-50 proposition, not a 50-1 shot.
Nevertheless, the bet didn't occur. There are some interesting ones that did, however.






[edit on 4/16/2007 by TheAvenger]