Man Made Global Warming - yet another opinion

A_fiend_for_life

Possible earlier influences of man on climate including mini ice age:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/frontiers_20060531.shtml


Needs real player:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/rams/frontiers_20060531.ram

moonrakerz

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

Possible earlier influences of man on climate including mini ice age:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/frontiers_20060531.shtml

That really is desperation to trot out something like that !

The population of the planet in Neolithic times was somewhere between 5 and 11 million (difficult to estimate !), the present population is somewhere over 6.5 billion (difficult to keep up !).

To try and say that Neolithic man with stone tools could create as much CO2 as modern man - about 650 times as many modern men, with all his tecnnology ! - just smacks of idiocy, or farce :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The truth is that CO2 levels have risen and fallen for millions of years - no one really knows why - except crackpots like this !

A_fiend_for_life

Thanks for your response moonrakers hence 'possible' in my post.

I certainly think the neolithic influence sounds dubious and the researcher has revised down his figures on the pre-industrial influences of man.

According to the program there is only the researcher himself and one other who studied the number of stomata on leaves around the time of the mini ice age. This is based only on one study afaik. So hardly a weight of evidence.

More importantly the program could have done with putting the idea in conflict with sunspot activity during the mini ice age imho.

A_fiend_for_life

moonrakerz wrote: »

To try and say that Neolithic man with stone tools could create as much CO2 as modern man - about 650 times as many modern men, with all his tecnnology ! - just smacks of idiocy, or farce :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

By the way, between a rock and a hard place, what's the easiest way the neolithic man would clear a forest for farmland?

moonrakerz

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

By the way, between a rock and a hard place, what's the easiest way the neolithic man would clear a forest for farmland?

Yes, by burning - but he is only going to burn off what he needs ! He has better thing to do than burn down the whole Amazon rain forest.

mech_2

moonrakerz wrote: »

Same old half truths from the man-made lobby ! The other planets are warming (just as the earth is) - FACT - but they have to say "even if".

I don't believe that is any kind of fact at all. There is a suggestion that Mars has warmed since the Viking missions due to a general surface darkening due to global dust storms (such as the one in 2001). This is phenomenon is unique to Mars. It doesn't apply to the other planets.

Are you seriously suggesting that we need to send probes to Mars to see if the sun is increasing its output? Why wouldn't we just look at the sun?

cepheus

The truth is that CO2 levels have risen and fallen for millions of years - no one really knows why - except crackpots like this !

Indeed you have to go back millions of years before CO2 was anything like it is now. To do this is meaningless, no-one says volcanoes or natural processes cannot release large amount of CO2 to the environment. What is clear that in recent times whilst conditions have been relatively stable man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases is the chief independent variable (the variable which causes temperature to rise).

Try to get a perspective of timescales and what they mean. You cannot go back tens of millions of years to explain what has just happened suddenly in the last 100 years. It's like blaming lightning for burning down the house. If your house is burning down, chances are man or something man has put in it has something to do with it. In this case 'lightning' is not only just unlikely we actually know it hasn't just happened. That is, we know temperatures are rising higher than they ever have in the recent past (thousands, probably tens of thousands of years) and we have an obvious reason for it (mans release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere)

moonrakerz

mech wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that we need to send probes to Mars

Que ??? Where did I say that ?

thescouselander

mech wrote: »

I don't believe that is any kind of fact at all. There is a suggestion that Mars has warmed since the Viking missions due to a general surface darkening due to global dust storms (such as the one in 2001). This is phenomenon is unique to Mars. It doesn't apply to the other planets.

Are you seriously suggesting that we need to send probes to Mars to see if the sun is increasing its output? Why wouldn't we just look at the sun?

Yes, good explanation that but where did the dust come from if it was not already on the surface before these dust storms? Surely this so called darker dust could only have moved from one place to another - it must have been there all along.

mech_2

thescouselander wrote: »

Yes, good explanation that but where did the dust come from if it was not already on the surface before these dust storms? Surely this so called darker dust could only have moved from one place to another - it must have been there all along.

The surface is darker than the dust and the dust moves around periodically. At least, that's my understanding of it.