Thread: Global Warming vs Global Cooling ... Can the earth Survive?

I heard and understand the causes for Global Warming ... but now I am also hearing about Global Cooling but have no idea what that is.

My thought on this whole thing is that how much can our atmosphere take before mankind goes extinct or before the balance is thrown off to an extent that the planet either freezes or dries up?

Doesnt methane and other gasses become released as the polar ice caps melt? Have we gone too far to reverse the melting?

Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases

Personally, I think life on Earth will adapt. Humans are pretty adaptable - what with our medium sized brains and all.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases

Personally, I think life on Earth will adapt. Humans are pretty adaptable - what with our medium sized brains and all.

At some point the air wont be breathable like when the levels are at 80 or 90 % While I am not sure if that is even possible ( assuming we burnt everything ) ... we probably have enough so that the air would be poison. Wouldnt we?

/Mod hat on

I do not mind heated arguments, as that's the stuff from which the truth is separated from the dross. Much like how all elements throughout the universe are manufactured in stars via stellar nucleosynthesis.

The key is to stick to the facts and attack the points in the posts without attacking the posters themselves.

/Mod hat off

Some people worship the idea of anthropogenic global warming with religious fervor. When it comes to global warming, I've no doubt it's happening, as the historical meteorological evidence for that is abundantly clear. When it comes to the question of how much of that's being caused by man vs nature, the "evidence" is muddy as hell, and the jury's still out.

Originally Posted by tom

At some point the air wont be breathable like when the levels are at 80 or 90 % While I am not sure if that is even possible ( assuming we burnt everything ) ... we probably have enough so that the air would be poison. Wouldnt we?

We could burn all vegetation on the Earth, all oil, all coal, and all natural gas and still wouldn't get there. We'd wind up with a horribly polluted atmosphere, and acidic oceans would kill most reef life, but we wouldn't get anywhere near 80% CO2 rates.

Earth's Atmosphere currently contains 0.039% CO2. Over the last 50 years (from 1960) it's increased from 316 ppm to 384 ppm. That's an increase of 21.5%. In order to get to just 1% CO2, it would require a 2,564% increase (26 times current levels) or 120 times more than the increase from 1960 to 2010. At 1%, the only side effect is increased drowsiness.

We can survive at 1% levels indefinitely, but it wouldn't be pleasant. Not that we'll ever get anywhere near that level, as their are biological (plants/algae/bacteria) and chemical (oceans) sinks throughout our world. At 1000 ppm, for example, 2.5 times current levels, plants grow 50% faster. - Source

My ignorance of things relating to this subject is far in excess of my knowledge.

So it is with some relief that I see us talking of the facts here... this is very good for me..

and I can only contribute lightly with... from post #1, "Can the Earth survive. " Well of course it will.. but will there still be humanity ? Hmmm...adapting, or changing it.

Hey Mod - who were you addressing there? Or was that a blanket warning/suggestion to nip something in the bud that MIGHT happen?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Hey Mod - who were you addressing there? Or was that a blanket warning/suggestion to nip something in the bud that MIGHT happen?

Just a blanket reminder to help keep the posts focused on the other posts, rather than the people. I'd prefer people backing up their opinions with facts, but if all they have are opinions, those are welcome, too.

Originally Posted by tom

At some point the air wont be breathable like when the levels are at 80 or 90 % While I am not sure if that is even possible ( assuming we burnt everything ) ... we probably have enough so that the air would be poison. Wouldnt we?

The problem with increased greenhouse gases like has nothing to do with breathability. But first, some corrections to your numbers. The Earth's atmosphere is nearly 80% . Nearly 20% of the atmosphere is . Even if you consumed all by burning carbon, you would not raise the level to 80%, not even close.

Look at the graph below. is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. That tiny fraction has oscillated up and down over the millennia. When it is down, we get ice ages. When it is up, we get periods of lush plant growth. Now look at the right hand side of the graph. Over the last 200 years, the concentration of has skyrocketed.

Climate change deniers claim that our high levels are part of natural variations and that there is no evidence of human intervention. Well, this graph clearly shows the natural variations in atmospheric . We are now at twice maximum variation and increasing with no end in sight. I defy anyone to look at this graph and make a logical fact-based argument that the spike is due to natural variations.



This is one of many graphs of global concentration that you can find here.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

The problem with increased greenhouse gases like has nothing to do with breathability. But first, some corrections to your numbers. The Earth's atmosphere is nearly 80% . Nearly 20% of the atmosphere is . Even if you consumed all by burning carbon, you would not raise the level to 80%, not even close.

Look at the graph below. is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. That tiny fraction has oscillated up and down over the millennia. When it is down, we get ice ages. When it is up, we get periods of lush plant growth. Now look at the right hand side of the graph. Over the last 200 years, the concentration of has skyrocketed.

Climate change deniers claim that our high levels are part of natural variations and that there is no evidence of human intervention. Well, this graph clearly shows the natural variations in atmospheric . We are now at twice maximum variation and increasing with no end in sight. I defy anyone to look at this graph and make a logical fact-based argument that the spike is due to natural variations.



This is one of many graphs of global concentration that you can find here.

MisterMe,
you have this rather strange habit of quoting a text and then going off on this kick that has nothing to do with what the quoted text said.
Now, I do that on occasion, myself... usually causing someone else to get defensive... But I swear it seems as though you do it in almost every post you make. It's pretty often that I'm reading away and then I come across your post and
SWOOSH!
I get whipped around to a totally different topic. I'm just standing there in a post-teleportation daze wondering what the devil just happened.

Now that you've been duly informed of this habit...

I'd like to point out something absurd. And before you "Swoosh!" me- It's pretty clear that the industrial age of humanity has Greatly influenced Earths concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to make a strong case on non-anthropogenic climate change, and then get up from my Computer, Lower my Air Conditioning Thermostat, leave all the lights on in my house (Many electrical plants run on fossil fuels) and then go outside in my knobby tired SUV and crank up the A/C and drive downtown.
Nor have I any desire to do so.

Even so, Ice Cores only go back a few tens to a very very few hundreds of thousands of years.
A drop in the Bucket in the time of the Earth.

In fact, archeologists that study the age of the Dinosaurs, 80 MILLION years ago, describe a sweltering set of climates that would fluctuate, co2 levels that would make as gasp and heat that makes a Texas Summer seem like a San Francisco winter.

A person cannot make an argument that human activity has no relevance to climate change.

A person can make a strong argument that in the last few decades, humanity has had a profound impact on Climate Change.
A person can make a strong argument that in the last one hundred thousand years, Humanity has had some influence on Climate change.

No one can do more than speculate about the very lengthy stretch of time before that. And by lengthy- I mean hundreds of Millions of years.

Now if that chart went back 1,000,000,000 years rather than 100,000 years- I'd be utterly and totally convinced.
As it is, this is what we have:

Now in this image, the Earliest ice sheets formed about halfway through that blue sliver, during the Paleogene period.

Our ice cores date back to about 100,000 years of the Pleistocene Epoch. That would be about 1/105th of that Yellow Sliver.
Divide that yellow sliver into 105 parts and take ONE of them. That's the amount of that yellow sliver we are talking about that we can measure back to- then hold that up against the green, red and gray sections of the time line.

Schmall...

Very, very schmall...
Even if you start your scale at Line 3.

It's unlikely that human beings have had a profound impact on the climate. Even so, it's not so great an impact. For one thing, in spite of that the oil we use is still forming and seeping down through the ground even as I type this, it's doing so very slowly and we're consuming it very quickly. We are soon due to run out. No more burning.
One of the greater impacts comes from the use of Chlorofluorocarbons, which, to our credit, we have severely reduced.

We don't hold up a candle to the Methane productions of the volcanic flats of times past. Pun unintended.

We are most certainly incapable of increasing the CO2 levels higher than 5%. Even if we wanted to do so. We're limited by our resources and we will need to develop more efficient and cleaner and renewable energy sources.
The days of gobbling up dino poop and rot are numbered. Even though the term "Fossil fuel" is a bit of a misnomer.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

...

Now if that chart went back 1,000,000,000 years rather than 100,000 years- I'd be utterly and totally convinced.
As it is, this is what we have:

Now in this image, the Earliest ice sheets formed about halfway through that blue sliver, during the Paleogene period.

Our ice cores date back to about 100,000 years of the Pleistocene Epoch. That would be about 1/105th of that Yellow Sliver.
...

i have no idea what point you are trying to make. I responded to a post in which the poster talked about an atmospheric level of 80%. I disputed that level, gave approximate numbers that showed that such a level was virtually impossible, and linked to a graph that showed the real numbers. The real numbers are much lower than 80%. However, the real numbers show that levels can be a disaster at tiny, but historically high concentrations.

I might remind you that the graph comes not from science fans trading ignorance on a website nor does it come from corporate mavens or cynical politicians spreading misinformation on a TV show. The graph comes from reputable scientists who are subject to peer review.

Why do you assume that the only source of ancient information is ice cores?