What's causing the climate change?

[herpguy]

I am just wondering, what do you think is causing global warming and why?

[JustStuit]

One article in Scientific American a while back said that ever since agriculture became used in Asia (rice fields and then it spread to the rest of the world) the greenhouse gasses started to increase dramatically. It has been increased higher since the industrial age started but the cause from agriculture had been culminating for thousands of years. I can't remember what exactly it said but I'm pretty sure that was the jist of it.

[bascule]

Anthropogenically forcings are overwhelmingly the cause. However, to pin it all on greenhouse gasses is naive. There are a number of local and regional climate forcings which global warming via greenhouse gasses amplifies, and these too are contributing. That's not to say that CO₂ isn't the primary cause, but it's certainly not the only cause.

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Anthropogenically forcings are overwhelmingly the cause. However, to pin it all on greenhouse gasses is naive. There are a number of local and regional climate forcings which global warming via greenhouse gasses amplifies, and these too are contributing. That's not to say that CO₂ isn't the primary cause, but it's certainly not the only[/i'] cause.

Indeed. Cow farts provide a lot of the problem, as methane is worse than CO₂.

 

I suppose it's our fault there are so many cows.

[Callipygous]

Indeed. Cow farts provide a lot of the problem' date=' as methane is worse than CO[sub']2[/sub].

 

I suppose it's our fault there are so many cows.

 

 

do your part. eat a hamburger.

[JustStuit]

do your part. eat a hamburger.

This would actually make the farmers produce more cows whereas boycotting all meat would get rid of the problem when they go bankrupt. You'd need a lot of people doing it though.

[Prime-Evil]

It is my understanding that it is a combination of fossil fuel burning, which really only got really going since 1950, and deforestation and charcoal burning, which is an older game, but still a ver popular one. I think animal husbandry may also have played a role, but this may have been partially offset by killing off bison and other large mammals. It is hard to get data on historical biomass levels. I will open a thread if I can.

[dehammer]

let me point out something. all the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere once came from the atmosphere. 2.1 million years ago the glaceral age cause many trees to be buryed before they could biodegrade. had nature had its way, those trees would never have put the coal and gas underground in the first place. all we are doing is helping the earth return to its preglaceral period. yes we are helping it faster, but we are not the cause of it.

[silkworm]

While I agree that (and I think) that anthropogenic sources have accelerated global warming that the overall trend would be warming via many other factors. Some of which may not be even considered currently.

[WillTheNewf]

I believe the sun is also getting warmer.. Not that this has much of a impact, however, scientists determined that the sun becomes a half degree hotter every century.

[MattC]

let me point out something. all the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere once came from the atmosphere. 2.1 million years ago the glaceral age cause many trees to be buryed before they could biodegrade. had nature had its way, those trees would never have put the coal and gas underground in the first place. all we are doing is helping the earth return to its preglaceral period. yes we are helping it faster, but we are not the cause of it.

 

 

Sorry if I come off harsh, but this is a very poor argument to make. In the most recent pre-glacial (not preglaceral) there were still numerous sinks for carbon (in the form of oil, among other things) that was once in the atmosphere (and will again, eventually make it back). To say that if "nature had its way," the trapped hydrocarbons would never have been trapped is ridiculous - if you think about it, it was nature's way that trapped the hydrocarbons, and if you were to release enough of the vast quantity of geologically stored carbon, life on earth would change quite dramatically (humans would die off very fast, if the C02 levels increased enough). Likewise, if "nature had its way," one might argue, entropy would have won out and you and I would never have been born. These kinds of assumptions are not science ... nor are they interesting.

 

What is interesting is the climate change that is occurring in the world, and the effects of mankind on our climate. Personally, my studies have led me to believe that, much as Bascule's post pointed out, things are not exactly black and white. Different anthropogenic changes are having different (and often opposite) effects on the Earth's energy balance. I have yet to see any convincing research to suggest that the Earth is not *really* warming up at the moment, but I also recognize that short term and even long term warming trends occur throughout the history of the planet. If humans are warming the Earth, the changes, if left unchecked, could be disastrous - ocean currents could change, sea levels could rise, crop productivity could be significantly reduced in some areas, and there is even the possibility, remote though it may seem, of starting a positive-feedback effect that leads to a run-away greenhouse effect. If humans aren't warming it, then we may be cooling it - if the cooling effects of soot outweigh the warming effects of moisture and CO2 and other gases - and this could be just as bad. I'm glad that there is interest in and research toward changing the way we generate our energy, as I don't want to bet on the small chance that our actions won't have further negative consequences (note the use of the word "further," as there are certainly health consequences to pollution that can be seen immediately).

[Prime-Evil]

People should take a little inventory of where all the carbon is in the world. It's all pretty amazing really. All the cycles within cycles. We shouldn't try to oversimplify it. We shouldn't try to mess with it too much either, and the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels and deforestation is pretty amazing also, and quite significant. I don't buy the argument that humans are powerless against the forces of nature. For 5000 years such people have claimed dominion over all the Earth. It is a little late now with 6,500,000,000 people to deny accountability.

 

By 2100 we might make up 1% of the total biomass on the planet. We are currently 0.3%. That is pretty significant for a species near the top of the food chain, even if we weren't all a bunch of self-destructive pyromaniacs.

 

EDIT - I was mistaken. Humans are much less than 0.3% of the total biomass.

We might perhaps be 0.3% of living land animals, but I really have not idea.

It would be good to know though, and compare to historical levels.

Thanks Herme3 for pointing out my mistake.

[dehammer]

Indeed. Cow farts provide a lot of the problem' date=' as methane is worse than CO[sub']2[/sub].

 

I suppose it's our fault there are so many cows.

 

 

buffalos produced even more and we got rid of most of them. its a ballance.

[herme3]

I believe that the Earth is naturally coming out of an ice age. However, I also believe that human activities have greatly increased the speed of this process.

 

By 2100 we might make up 1% of the total biomass on the planet. We are currently 0.3%.

 

Could you please provide some type of evidence that supports this? I just find it difficult to believe. Think about all the dense forests that have millions of trees that are hundreds of feet tall. Think about all the plankton in the oceans. Also, think about the millions of bacteria cells that cover almost every inch of this planet.

[Prime-Evil]

I believe that the Earth is naturally coming out of an ice age. However' date=' I also believe that human activities have greatly increased the speed of this process.

 

Could you please provide some type of evidence that supports this? I just find it difficult to believe. Think about all the dense forests that have millions of trees that are hundreds of feet tall. Think about all the plankton in the oceans. Also, think about the millions of bacteria cells that cover almost every inch of this planet.[/quote']It's hard to get real data and I've only been onto this idea for a week now, but here is the link that got me curious.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass

"Biomass is organic non-fossil material, collectively. In other words, 'biomass' describes the mass of all biological organisms, dead or alive, excluding biological mass that has been transformed by geological processes into substances such as coal or petroleum.

 

The most successful animal of the earth, in terms of biomass, is the Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, with a biomass of probably over 500 million tons, roughly twice the total biomass of humans. The entire earth contains about 75 billion tons of biomass. Humans comprise about 250 million tons (0.33%), domesticated animals about 700 million (1.0%), and crops about 2 billion tons or 2.7% of the Earth's biomass."

 

Now I was somewhat sceptical about 0.33% humans myself.

 

250 Million x 2.2 Thousand / 6.5 Billion = 550/6.5 = 85 pounds.

An average weight of 85 pounds seems about right, perhaps a bit high.

 

OK. So next the 75 Billion tons for all biomass, living or recently demised.

I have no idea where the got that figure so lets check that again.

Forests I understand are roughly 50%, so lets get some data on that first.

 

...

 

Wow. I thought I had already checked this out.

There is so much conflicting information out there.

 

...

 

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html

Terrestial Plants Alone: 600 Billion Metric Tons of Carbon

At 75% carbon that would be 2400 Billion Metric Tons

Soil organic matter is another 1600 Tons of Carbon

We haven't even got to the ocean yet.

That's a lot more that 75 Billion Tons.

 

...

 

Whatever the total biomass is in the world, there is one less crow.

 

EDIT:

p.s. The wikipedia page has since been tagged for cleanup. Still I should have nown better. I thought I had checked that but I probably skipped 1 or 2 decimal places. I am not sure how much of the carbon in the ocean counts as biomass, and how much is disolved carbon dioxide and dissolved methane, and how much is sedimentary rock, or on its way.

[dambit]

I believe the climate is changing because of many factors, however the main factors that I think are responsible are the following.

 

I am not a greenie however, The amazon rain forrest is being decimated every day by big corporations cutting down the old growth trees to use as tooth picks or somthing. This forrest is the largest oxygen factory on the planet and in particular the old growth trees. As a consequence of the reduction of these trees the Co2 levels are rising. Even though people are planting more and more trees everyday, it will take at least one hundred years before these new trees are able to filter out large amounts of Co2 from the atmosphere.

 

The other important contributing factor is the continued use of fossil fuels. And more importantly, the extremely inefficient way in which we are forced to use them. Cars are puposely designed to burn fuel inefficienty so that we have to purchase more fuel on a more regular basis, and any attemp to increase the efficiency of a car is met with resistance from petrol station owners and major corporations due to there fear of losing profits.

 

These two factors put together are IMO the fastest way to affect the climate of this planet, and the resulting weather anomalies and other unusual events are a direct result.

[herpguy]

I am not a greenie however' date=' The amazon rain forrest is being decimated every day by big corporations cutting down the old growth trees to use as tooth picks or somthing. This forrest is the largest oxygen factory on the planet and in particular the old growth trees. As a consequence of the reduction of these trees the Co2 levels are rising. Even though people are planting more and more trees everyday, it will take at least one hundred years before these new trees are able to filter out large amounts of Co2 from the atmosphere.[/quote']

Actually, it's a little worse than that. The main reason for rainforest deforestation is farming and cattle raising. So the rainforest is burned, releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere. But soon, the minerals are washed away by rain (they would be held in the soil by the roots of trees) so more of the rainforest is burned.

 

These new trees that you speak of will do nothing compared to what the rainforest would, and the entire Amazon Rainforest may be gone by 2050.

[RichF]

I believe the climate is changing because of many factors' date=' however the main factors that I think are responsible are the following.

 

I am not a greenie however, The amazon rain forrest is being decimated every day by big corporations cutting down the old growth trees to use as tooth picks or somthing. This forrest is the largest oxygen factory on the planet and in particular the old growth trees. As a consequence of the reduction of these trees the Co2 levels are rising. Even though people are planting more and more trees everyday, it will take at least one hundred years before these new trees are able to filter out large amounts of Co2 from the atmosphere. [/quote']

 

You blame this on big corporations but the truth is that Amazon deforestation occurs becuse the Brazillian govt allows it. Maybe the UN should step in?

[dambit]

You blame this on big corporations but the truth is that Amazon deforestation occurs becuse the Brazillian govt allows it. Maybe the UN should step in?

 

You are correct, but unfortunately the UN is just as corrupt as most governments.

[Prime-Evil]

More technically I think the oceans are the dominant oxygen factory and the Forests are the dominant living carbon warehouse. We need both to remain in business. Also 'Northern' forests store more carbon because they store in in the ground and not just in the air. They are somewhat more robust for this reason, but several cycles of careless clearcutting and replanting they can also suffer desoilification, erosion, deforestation, and desertification. The shifting of climate towards the poles will not help either. The Canadian shield does not have enough soil and will not get enough sunlight, even if it was 5 degrees warmer. Boreal forests on the other hand will become drier and suffer more forest fires, or if the dry litter is removed, suffer soil degradation. The only way to keep a Boreal forest really healthy is to keep it wet, and to keep it wet you can't clearcut. You have to do more selective cutting and leave some mulch behind also. We need to manage our forests less intensely, perhaps with more men and horses taking less wood, and let them build up biomass, in the soil as well as in the air.

 

Canada and USA together have 20% of the forest land and 33% of forest biomass.

Russia has 30% of forests and perhaps 50% of forest biomass.

Tropical rain forests might be 40% of forest and 33% of forst biomass.

The deforestation is happening here at home also. We just don't see it.

[herpguy]

You blame this on big corporations but the truth is that Amazon deforestation occurs becuse the Brazillian govt allows it.

If Brazil didn't allow Amazon deforestation then just about everyone there will live in poverty. I'm not saying it's good to destroy forests, in fact I am so against it that I created a locally famous documentary against it, but the Brazilian government depends on it. Eco-tourism would be a great way to make money working with the rainforest, but it's a hard transition to make.

[daneeka]

Yep I agree; It's quite easy to simply blame the nation in question but if you take a proper look at things you realise that the motives behind forest clearance can be traced back to governments and consumers within developed nations. Much of the produce derived from agriculture within undeveloped nations is exported to feed the developed world. These people need to make a living and untill we, as conscious consumers, provide the motivation for alternative means, such activities will continue.

 

Global warming is as we are presently experiencing it is both a funtion of human activities and a natural phenomenon. The drivers behind both [factors] are yet to be fully underdtood. I think the bottom line is that cutting down vast tracts of forest is not wise but it is not up to government to prevent this...it is up to society.

[SmallIsPower]

Anthropogenically forcings are overwhelmingly the cause. However' date=' to pin it all on greenhouse gasses is naive. There are a number of local and regional climate forcings which global warming via greenhouse gasses amplifies, and these too are contributing. That's not to say that CO[sub']2[/sub] isn't the primary cause, but it's certainly not the only cause.

 

Anthropomorhic forcings, not an increase in CO₂, but cutting down forests that sequester CO₂.

[ecoli]

Anthropomorhic forcings, not an increase in CO₂, but cutting down forests that sequester CO_2[/sub'].

 

_{You're going to have to prove that one.}

[bascule]

Anthropomorhic forcings

 

So they're human-shaped?

 

not an increase in CO₂, but cutting down forests that sequester CO₂.

 

I'm afraid the carbon cycle isn't that simple:

 

http://cypenv.org/Files/sequest.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2958